| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200420072735.krkt2mundqguhqpl@xzhoux.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:27:35 +0800
From: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>
To: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
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 Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:46:01AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>
>
> On 4/20/20 8:27 AM, Murphy Zhou wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Sorry lost you. Ok so what I meant above is.
> With your changes made in above code to truncate last_lblk
> and lblk, we may never end up in a situation where map.m_len will be 0.
> So the below check in your code, isn't it redundant?
> I wanted to double confirm this with you.
>
> + if (map.m_len == 0 )
> + map.m_len = 1;
No it's not redundant. I hit and said that wo/ these two lines we will
hit a WARN later.
At first I thought truncating values is enough, but it's not.
generic/013 (fsstress) can hit the WARN in fs/ext4/extents_status.c:266
easily.
By printk values confirmed that at that time m_len is zero.
Found some debug notes showing how crazy these numbers are:
offset 80000395000 length 3533d50a37ee6ddb, lblk 80000395 llblk d0a3827b
lblk 80000395 llblk d0a3827b, m_lblk 80000395 m_len 50a37ee7
end d0a3827b, m_lblk 80000395 m_len 50a37ee7
offset d0a3827c000 length 3533cffffffffddb, lblk d0a3827c llblk d0a3827b
lblk d0a3827c llblk d0a3827b, m_lblk d0a3827c m_len 0
end d0a3827b, m_lblk d0a3827c m_len 0
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 7962 at fs/ext4/extents_status.c:266 __es_find_extent_range+0x102/0x120 [ext4]
Thanks.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Sorry I didn't it explain it right maybe. So if we are anyway changing
> lblk by truncating it and making sure map.m_len is not getting
> overflowed (as we did in my previous patch), then we need not play with
> last_lblk anyways.
>
> And FWIW, instead of truncating lblk just so that ext4_map_blocks()
> doesn't WARN, we can as well just return -ENOENT for
> lblk >= EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK. ENOENT makes more sense to me,
> but please feel free to correct me here.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Meanwhile, I will also play this change (-ENOENT) a bit to at least get
> few of the known test cases covered.
>
>
> Also I do had this question for ext4.
> EXT4_MAX_BLOCKS explaination says that's the max *number* of logical
> blocks in a file. So since it is the number of blocks, it is equivalent
> of length. Whereas the EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK says the max logical block
> of a file, which is equivalent of offset.
> Considering the logical offset starts from 0, so as Ted was saying
> having both values same doesn't make sense. Ideally maybe
> EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK should be 0xFFFFFFFFE.
>
> But that may also require some careful checking of all bounds of length
> and offset across the code. So maybe we can revisit this later.
> /*
> * Maximum number of logical blocks in a file; ext4_extent's ee_block is
> * __le32.
> */
> #define EXT_MAX_BLOCKS 0xffffffff
>
>
> /* Max logical block we can support */
> #define EXT4_MAX_LOGICAL_BLOCK 0xFFFFFFFF
>
>
> -ritesh
>
> >
> > 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists