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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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