[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57766AE1.1040508@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:06:41 +0200
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] ext4: validate number of meta clusters in group
Hi,
I've found that sbi->s_es->s_reserved_gdt_blocks is not validated before
being used, so e.g. a value of 25600 will overflow the buffer head and
corrupt random kernel memory (I've observed 20+ different stack traces
due to this bug! many of them long after the code has finished).
The following patch fixes it for me:
diff --git a/fs/ext4/balloc.c b/fs/ext4/balloc.c
index 3020fd7..1ea5054 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/balloc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/balloc.c
@@ -208,6 +208,9 @@ static int ext4_init_block_bitmap(struct super_block
*sb,
memset(bh->b_data, 0, sb->s_blocksize);
bit_max = ext4_num_base_meta_clusters(sb, block_group);
+ if ((bit_max >> 3) >= bh->b_size)
+ return -EFSCORRUPTED;
+
for (bit = 0; bit < bit_max; bit++)
ext4_set_bit(bit, bh->b_data);
However, I think there are potentially more bugs later in this function
where offsets are not validated so it needs to be reviewed carefully.
Another question is whether we should do the validation earlier, e.g. in
ext4_fill_super(). I'm not too familiar with the code, but maybe
something like the attached patch would be better? It does seem to fix
the issue as well.
Vegard
View attachment "0001-ext4-validate-number-of-base-meta-clusters-in-group.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2568 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists