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: <20200619070854.z3dslhh7yebainhd@work> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:08:54 +0200 From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ext4: fix potential negative array index in do_split() On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:41:22AM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:19:04PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > If for any reason a directory passed to do_split() does not have enough > > active entries to exceed half the size of the block, we can end up > > iterating over all "count" entries without finding a split point. > > > > In this case, count == move, and split will be zero, and we will > > attempt a negative index into map[]. > > > > Guard against this by detecting this case, and falling back to > > split-to-half-of-count instead; in this case we will still have > > plenty of space (> half blocksize) in each split block. > > > > Fixes: ef2b02d3e617 ("ext34: ensure do_split leaves enough free space in both blocks") > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> > > --- > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/namei.c b/fs/ext4/namei.c > > index a8aca4772aaa..8b60881f07ee 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext4/namei.c > > +++ b/fs/ext4/namei.c > > @@ -1858,7 +1858,7 @@ static struct ext4_dir_entry_2 *do_split(handle_t *handle, struct inode *dir, > > blocksize, hinfo, map); > > map -= count; > > dx_sort_map(map, count); > > - /* Split the existing block in the middle, size-wise */ > > + /* Ensure that neither split block is over half full */ > > size = 0; > > move = 0; > > for (i = count-1; i >= 0; i--) { > > @@ -1868,8 +1868,18 @@ static struct ext4_dir_entry_2 *do_split(handle_t *handle, struct inode *dir, > > size += map[i].size; > > move++; > > } > > - /* map index at which we will split */ > > - split = count - move; > > + /* > > + * map index at which we will split > > + * > > + * If the sum of active entries didn't exceed half the block size, just > > + * split it in half by count; each resulting block will have at least > > + * half the space free. > > + */ > > + if (i > 0) > > + split = count - move; > > + else > > + split = count/2; > > Won't we have exactly the same problem as we did before your commit > ef2b02d3e617cb0400eedf2668f86215e1b0e6af ? Since we do not know how much > space we actually moved we might have not made enough space for the new > entry ? > > Also since we have the move == count when the problem appears then it's > clear that we never hit the condition > > 1865 → → /* is more than half of this entry in 2nd half of the block? */ > 1866 → → if (size + map[i].size/2 > blocksize/2) > 1867 → → → break; > > in the loop. This is surprising but it means the the entries must have > gaps between them that are small enough that we can't fit the entry > right in ? Should not we try to compact it before splitting, or is it > the case that this should have been done somewhere else ? The other possibility is that map[i].size is not right and indeed there seems to be a bug in dx_make_map() map_tail->size = le16_to_cpu(de->rec_len); should be map_tail->size = ext4_rec_len_from_disk(de->rec_len, blocksize)); right ? Otherwise with large enough records the size will be smaller than it really is. A quick look at fs/ext4/namei.c reveals couple of places there rec_len is used without the conversion and we should check whether it needs fixing. -Lukas > > If we really want ot be fair and we want to split it right in the middle > of the entries size-wise then we need to keep track of of sum of the > entries and decide based on that, not blocksize/2. But maybe the problem > could be solved by compacting the entries together because the condition > seems to rely on that. > > -Lukas > > > + > > hash2 = map[split].hash; > > continued = hash2 == map[split - 1].hash; > > dxtrace(printk(KERN_INFO "Split block %lu at %x, %i/%i\n", > > > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists