[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230814192406.GD1171@sol.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:24:06 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ext4: reject casefold inode flag without casefold
feature
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 03:09:33PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> writes:
>
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> >
> > It is invalid for the casefold inode flag to be set without the casefold
> > superblock feature flag also being set. e2fsck already considers this
> > case to be invalid and handles it by offering to clear the casefold flag
> > on the inode. __ext4_iget() also already considered this to be invalid,
> > sort of, but it only got so far as logging an error message; it didn't
> > actually reject the inode. Make it reject the inode so that other code
> > doesn't have to handle this case. This matches what f2fs does.
> >
> > Note: we could check 's_encoding != NULL' instead of
> > ext4_has_feature_casefold(). This would make the check robust against
> > the casefold feature being enabled by userspace writing to the page
> > cache of the mounted block device. However, it's unsolvable in general
> > for filesystems to be robust against concurrent writes to the page cache
> > of the mounted block device. Though this very particular scenario
> > involving the casefold feature is solvable, we should not pretend that
> > we can support this model, so let's just check the casefold feature.
> > tune2fs already forbids enabling casefold on a mounted filesystem.
>
> just because we can't fix the general issue for the entire filesystem
> doesn't mean this case *must not* ever be addressed. What is the
> advantage of making the code less robust against the syzbot code? Just
> check sb->s_encoding and be safe later knowing the unicode map is
> available.
>
Just to make sure, it sounds like you agree that the late checks of ->s_encoding
are not needed and only __ext4_iget() should handle it, right? That simplifies
the code so it is obviously beneficial if we can do it.
As for whether __ext4_iget() should check the casefold feature or ->s_encoding,
we should simply go with the one that makes the code clearer, as per what I've
said. I think it's casefold, but it could be ->s_encoding if others prefer.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists