linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] ext4: prevent getting empty inode buffer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 31 Aug 2021 15:01:58 +0800
From:   Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:     <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        <jack@...e.cz>, <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] ext4: prevent getting empty inode buffer

On 2021/8/31 11:02, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 09:04:12PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>
>> So this patch initialize the inode buffer by filling the in-mem inode
>> contents if we skip read I/O, ensure that the buffer is really uptodate.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/ext4/inode.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> index 3c36e701e30e..8b37f55b04ad 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> @@ -4446,8 +4446,8 @@ static int ext4_fill_raw_inode(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_inode *raw_inode
>>   * inode.
>>   */
>>  static int __ext4_get_inode_loc(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long ino,
>> -				struct ext4_iloc *iloc, int in_mem,
>> -				ext4_fsblk_t *ret_block)
>> +				struct inode *inode, struct ext4_iloc *iloc,
>> +				int in_mem, ext4_fsblk_t *ret_block)
> 
> 
> In this patch you've added a new argument 'inode'.  However, if in_mem
> is true, and inode is NULL, the kernel will crash with a null pointer
> dereference.  Furthermore, whenever in_mem is false, the callers pass
> in NULL for inode.
> 
> Given that, perhaps we should just drop the in_mem argument, and then
> instead of
> 
> 	if (in_mem) {
> 
> we do:
> 
> 	if (inode && !ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_XATTR) {
> 
> with the comments adjusted accordingly?
> 
> I think it will make the code a bit simpler and readable.
> 
> What do you think?
> 

Yes，although I have already prevent passing 'in_mem' is true but 'inode' is
NULL in ext4_get_inode_loc(), using two arguments show the inode in-mem case
is not safe. I will remove the 'in_mem' parameter.

Thanks,
Yi.