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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20200420025721.ac5ighvy77fffnxf@xzhoux.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:57:21 +0800
From:   Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: validate fiemap iomap begin offset and length value

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 09:49:27PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Hello Ted,
> 
> On 4/19/20 10:16 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> 
> > 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,
> 
> Yes, I did mention about this case in point 2 in below link though.
> But maybe I was only focused on testing syzcaller reproducer, so
> couldn't test this reported case.
> 
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg71387.html
> 
> 
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:42:24AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > > I think we need to take his patch, and make a simialr change to
> > > ext4_iomap_begin().   Ritesh, do you agree?
> > 
> > For example...
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > index 2a4aae6acdcb..adce3339d697 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > @@ -3424,8 +3424,10 @@ static int ext4_iomap_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length,
> >   	int ret;
> >   	struct ext4_map_blocks map;
> >   	u8 blkbits = inode->i_blkbits;
> > +	ext4_lblk_t lblk = offset >> blkbits;
> > +	ext4_lblk_t last_lblk = (offset + length - 1) >> blkbits;
> 
> Why play with last_lblk but?
> 
> 
> 
> > -	if ((offset >> blkbits) > EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)
> > +	if (lblk > EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> >   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ext4_has_inline_data(inode)))
> > @@ -3434,9 +3436,15 @@ static int ext4_iomap_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length,
> >   	/*
> >   	 * Calculate the first and last logical blocks respectively.
> >   	 */
> > -	map.m_lblk = offset >> blkbits;
> > -	map.m_len = min_t(loff_t, (offset + length - 1) >> blkbits,
> > -			  EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK) - map.m_lblk + 1;
> > +	if (last_lblk >= EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)
> > +		last_lblk = EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK - 1;
> > +	if (lblk >= EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)
> > +		lblk = EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK - 1;
> > +
> > +	map.m_lblk = lblk;
> > +	map.m_len = last_lblk - lblk + 1;
> > +	if (map.m_len == 0 )
> > +		map.m_len = 1;
> 
> Not sure but with above changes map.m_len will never be
> 0. Right?

Yes. If it's 0, in ext4_iomap_is_delalloc we will get an "end" that
is less then m_lblk, causing another WARN in ext4_es_find_extent_range.

> 
> Ok, so the problem mainly is coming since ext4_map_blocks()
> is returning -EFSCORRUPTED in case if lblk >= EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK.
> 
> So why change last_lblk?

I guess because we need to make sure a sane length value. In the loop
in iomap_fiemap, start and length are not checked, assuming be checked
by caller. If length get overflowed, the start value for the next loop
can also be affected, which makes lblk last_lblk and m_len to go crazy.

Thanks.

> Shouldn't we just change the logic to return -ENOENT in case
> if (lblk >= EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)? ENOENT can be handled by
> IOMAP APIs to abort the loop properly.
> This along with the map.m_len overlflow patch which I had submitted
> before. (since the overflow patch is anyway a valid fix which we anyways
> need).
> 
> -ritesh
> 
> 
> >   	if (flags & IOMAP_WRITE)
> >   		ret = ext4_iomap_alloc(inode, &map, flags);
> > @@ -3524,8 +3532,10 @@ static int ext4_iomap_begin_report(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> >   	bool delalloc = false;
> >   	struct ext4_map_blocks map;
> >   	u8 blkbits = inode->i_blkbits;
> > +	ext4_lblk_t lblk = offset >> blkbits;
> > +	ext4_lblk_t last_lblk = (offset + length - 1) >> blkbits;
> > -	if ((offset >> blkbits) > EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)
> > +	if (lblk > EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> >   	if (ext4_has_inline_data(inode)) {
> > @@ -3540,9 +3550,15 @@ static int ext4_iomap_begin_report(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
> >   	/*
> >   	 * Calculate the first and last logical block respectively.
> >   	 */
> > -	map.m_lblk = offset >> blkbits;
> > -	map.m_len = min_t(loff_t, (offset + length - 1) >> blkbits,
> > -			  EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK) - map.m_lblk + 1;
> > +	if (last_lblk >= EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)
> > +		last_lblk = EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK - 1;
> > +	if (lblk >= EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK)
> > +		lblk = EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK - 1;
> > +
> > +	map.m_lblk = lblk;
> > +	map.m_len = last_lblk - lblk + 1;
> > +	if (map.m_len == 0 )
> > +		map.m_len = 1;
> >   	/*
> >   	 * Fiemap callers may call for offset beyond s_bitmap_maxbytes.
> > 
> 

-- 
Murphy