linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: reject 1k block fs on the first block of disk

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: <CABymUCPCT9KbMQDUTxwf6A+Cg9fWJNkefbMHD7SZD3Fc7FMFHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2023 09:58:03 +0800
From:   Jun Nie <jun.nie@...aro.org>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc:     tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tudor.ambarus@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: reject 1k block fs on the first block of disk

Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> 于2023年1月4日周三 03:17写道：
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 09:45:02AM +0800, Jun Nie wrote:
> > For 1k-block filesystems, the filesystem starts at block 1, not block 0.
> > If start_fsb is 0, it will be bump up to s_first_data_block. Then
> > ext4_get_group_no_and_offset don't know what to do and return garbage
> > results (blockgroup 2^32-1). The underflow make index
> > exceed es->s_groups_count in ext4_get_group_info() and trigger the BUG_ON.
> >
> > Fixes: 4a4956249dac0 ("ext4: fix off-by-one fsmap error on 1k block filesystems")
> > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=79d5768e9bfe362911ac1a5057a36fc6b5c30002
> > Reported-by: syzbot+6be2b977c89f79b6b153@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Jun Nie <jun.nie@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/ext4/fsmap.c | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/fsmap.c b/fs/ext4/fsmap.c
> > index 4493ef0c715e..1aef127b0634 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/fsmap.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/fsmap.c
> > @@ -702,6 +702,12 @@ int ext4_getfsmap(struct super_block *sb, struct ext4_fsmap_head *head,
> >               if (handlers[i].gfd_dev > head->fmh_keys[0].fmr_device)
> >                       memset(&dkeys[0], 0, sizeof(struct ext4_fsmap));
> >
> > +             /*
> > +              * Re-check the range after above limit operation and reject
> > +              * 1K fs on block 0 as fs should start block 1. */
> > +             if (dkeys[0].fmr_physical ==0 && dkeys[1].fmr_physical == 0)
> > +                     continue;
>
> ...and if this filesystem has 4k blocks, and therefore *does* define a
> block 0?

Yes, this is a real corner case test :-)

>
> --D
>
> > +
> >               info.gfi_dev = handlers[i].gfd_dev;
> >               info.gfi_last = false;
> >               info.gfi_agno = -1;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >