linux-ext4 - possible unintended integer truncation in fs/ext4/extents.c:get_implied_cluster

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52ACDBBE.32014.145F911E@pageexec.freemail.hu>
Date:	Sat, 14 Dec 2013 23:29:18 +0100
From:	"PaX Team" <pageexec@...email.hu>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
CC:	re.emese@...il.com
Subject: possible unintended integer truncation in fs/ext4/extents.c:get_implied_cluster_alloc

Hello folks,

while running a simple analyzer plugin on linux 3.12.5 written by Emese Revfy
we found a case in ext4 that looks like a potential problem. the code looks
like this:

4082 		map->m_pblk = (ee_start & ~(sbi->s_cluster_ratio - 1)) +
4083 			c_offset;

here the expression ~(sbi->s_cluster_ratio - 1) will first do the negation
on an unsigned int then extend the result to unsigned long long (i.e, there's
a 32->64 bit conversion on both 32 and 64 bit archs) and stores it as such.
now this will obviously lose the higher 32 bits of ee_start and the question
is: is this intended behaviour or a bug? later the code compares map->m_pblk
against ee_block which is as unsigned int only so there's some mixture of
integer types here that may warrant further review.

cheers,
 PaX Team

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html