[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200122003014.GA180824@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:30:15 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>,
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] ubifs: don't trigger assertion on invalid no-key
filename
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 02:31:59PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>
> If userspace provides an invalid fscrypt no-key filename which encodes a
> hash value with any of the UBIFS node type bits set (i.e. the high 3
> bits), gracefully report ENOENT rather than triggering ubifs_assert().
>
> Test case with kvm-xfstests shell:
>
> . fs/ubifs/config
> . ~/xfstests/common/encrypt
> dev=$(__blkdev_to_ubi_volume /dev/vdc)
> ubiupdatevol $dev -t
> mount $dev /mnt -t ubifs
> mkdir /mnt/edir
> xfs_io -c set_encpolicy /mnt/edir
> rm /mnt/edir/_,,,,,DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> With the bug, the following assertion fails on the 'rm' command:
>
> [ 19.066048] UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 379): ubifs_assert_failed: UBIFS assert failed: !(hash & ~UBIFS_S_KEY_HASH_MASK), in fs/ubifs/key.h:170
>
> Fixes: f4f61d2cc6d8 ("ubifs: Implement encrypted filenames")
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v4.10+
> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Richard, can you review the two UBIFS patches in this series, and if you're okay
with them, provide Acked-by's so that we can take them through the fscrypt tree?
They don't conflict with anything currently in the UBIFS tree.
Thanks!
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists