linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: validate fiemap iomap begin offset and length value

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

Message-ID: <20200419044224.GA311394@mit.edu>
Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 00:42:24 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: validate fiemap iomap begin offset and length value

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 07:26:53AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> ++ mailing list.
> Sorry somehow it got dropped.
> 
> 
> On 4/19/20 7:21 AM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > Hello Murphy,
> > 
> > I guess the patch to fix this issue was recently submitted.
> > Could you please test your reproducer, xfstest and ltp
> > tests on below patch too. And let me know if we can add your Tested-by:
> > 
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-ext4/patch/1a2dc8f198e1225ddd40833de76b60c7ee20d22d.1587024137.git.riteshh@linux.ibm.com/

His reproducer is still failing with your patch.  In order to for his
reproducer to succeed, we need to constrain lblk and last_lblk more
strictly than what is done in:

[PATCHv2 1/1] ext4: fix overflow case for map.m_len in ext4_iomap_begin_*

His patch does fix the issue.

ext4_map_block() is returning EFSCORRUPTED when lblk is
EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK, which is why he's constraining lblk to
EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK.  I haven't looked into this more closely yet,
but it looks we have some overflow/wraparound issue when lblk is
0xFFFFFFFF.  Which might mean that in fact EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK
might need to be 0xFFFFFFFE, or we need to look very closely our code
paths to make sure the right thing happes when we call
ext4_map_blocks() with m_lblk == 0xFFFFFFFF and m_len == 1.

I think we need to take his patch, and make a simialr change to
ext4_iomap_begin().   Ritesh, do you agree?

						- Ted