linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3] ext4: Fix rec

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]

Message-ID: <CANubcdXYm9dxx6WSECWmjrF9C_8bhsiUSC-xDe-Pz3Mvy0nFmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:11:10 +0800
From:   Stephen Zhang <starzhangzsd@...il.com>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        zhangshida@...inos.cn, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ext4: Fix rec_len verify error

Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> 于2023年8月4日周五 06:34写道：
>
> On Aug 2, 2023, at 9:09 PM, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:52:53AM +0800, Stephen Zhang wrote:
> >> Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> 于2023年8月2日周三 14:07写道：
> >>>
> >>> Not all of these cases are actual bugs.  The ext4_rec_len_from_disk()
> >>> function is only different for rec_len >= 2^16, so if it is comparing
> >>> rec_len against "12" or "sizeof(struct ...)" then the inequality will
> >>> be correct regardless of how it is decoded.
> >>>
> >>> That said, it makes sense to use ext4_rec_len_from_disk() to access
> >>> rec_len consistently throughout the code, since that avoids potential
> >>> bugs in the future.  We know the code will eventually will be copied
> >>> some place where rec_len >= 2^16 is actually important, and we may as
> >>> well avoid that bug before it happens.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> One thing this discussion *does* expose is that ext4_rec_len_from_disk()
> >>> is hard-coded at compile time to differentiate between PAGE_SIZE > 64k
> >>> and PAGE_SIZE = 4K, because it was never possible to have blocksize >
> >>> PAGE_SIZE, so only ARM/PPC ever had filesystems with blocksize=64KiB
> >>> (and the Fujitsu Fugaku SPARC system with blocksize=256KiB).
> >>>
> >>> However, with the recent advent of the VM and IO layers allowing
> >>> blocksize > PAGE_SIZE this function will need to be changed to allow
> >>> the same on x86 PAGE_SIZE=4KiB systems.  Instead of checking
> >>>
> >>>  #if PAGE_SIZE >= 65536
> >>>
> >>> it should handle this based on the filesystem blocksize at runtime:
> >>>
> >>> static inline
> >>> unsigned int ext4_rec_len_from_disk(__le16 dlen, unsigned blocksize)
> >>> {
> >>>        unsigned len = le16_to_cpu(dlen);
> >>>
> >>>        if (blocksize < 65536)
> >>>                return len;
> >>>
> >>>        if (len == EXT4_MAX_REC_LEN || len == 0)
> >>>                return blocksize;
> >>>
> >>>        return (len & 65532) | ((len & 3) << 16);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Strictly speaking, ((len & 65532) | ((len & 3) << 16) should equal "len"
> >>> for any filesystem with blocksize < 65536, but IMHO it is more clear if
> >>> the code is written this way.
> >>>
> >>> Similarly, the encoding needs to be changed to handle large records at
> >>> runtime for when we eventually allow ext4 with blocksize > PAGE_SIZE.
> >>>
> >>> static inline __le16 ext4_rec_len_to_disk(unsigned len, unsigned blocksize)
> >>> {
> >>>        BUG_ON(len > blocksize);
> >>>        BUG_ON(blocksize > (1 << 18));
> >>>        BUG_ON(len & 3);
> >>>
> >>>        if (len < 65536) /* always true for blocksize < 65536 */
> >>>                return cpu_to_le16(len);
> >>>
> >>>        if (len == blocksize) {
> >>>                if (blocksize == 65536)
> >>>                        return cpu_to_le16(EXT4_MAX_REC_LEN);
> >>>
> >>>                return cpu_to_le16(0);
> >>>        }
> >>>
> >>>        return cpu_to_le16((len & 65532) | ((len >> 16) & 3));
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmm, at least it sounds reasonable to me based on my limited
> >> knowledge. However, I am not sure whether you want me to incorporate
> >> these changes into this particular commit or another patch within this
> >> submission.
> >>
> >> By default, I will simply leave it for further discussion. Please let
> >> me know if you have any ideas.
> >
> > ext4 doesn't support blocksize > PAGE_SIZE yet.  Don't worry about this
> > for now.
>
> I agree it doesn't need to be merged into the current patch.
>
> It's something that could be fixed in a follow-on patch, to have one less
> bug to fix in the future when ext4 *does* support blocksize > PAGE_SIZE,
> which isn't so far away anymore.
>

Okay, I will attempt to submit another follow-on patch based on this discussion
after this one.

Cheers,
Shida

> Cheers, Andreas
>
>
>
>
>