linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ext4: ext4_fill_super shouldn't return 0 on corruption

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: <4CE1AC38.9040201@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:55:04 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	djwong@...ibm.com
CC:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	"Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mingming Cao <mcao@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: ext4_fill_super shouldn't return 0 on corruption

On 11/15/10 3:48 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> At the start of ext4_fill_super, ret is set to -EINVAL, and any failure path
> out of that function returns this ret.  However, the generic_check_addressable
> clause sets ret = 0 if it passes, which means that a subsequent failure (e.g.
> a group checksum error) returns 0 even though the mount should fail.  This
> causes vfs_kern_mount in turn to think that the mount succeeded (because
> PTR_ERR(0) is false), leading to an oops.
> 
> A simple fix is to avoid using ret for the generic_check_addressable check,
> which was last changed in commit 30ca22c70e3ef0a96ff84de69cd7e8561b416cb2.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...ibm.com>

looks right, but one comment below:

> ---
> 
>  fs/ext4/super.c |    5 ++---
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> index 40131b7..a44bc59 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> @@ -3257,9 +3257,8 @@ static int ext4_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>  	 * Test whether we have more sectors than will fit in sector_t,
>  	 * and whether the max offset is addressable by the page cache.
>  	 */
> -	ret = generic_check_addressable(sb->s_blocksize_bits,
> -					ext4_blocks_count(es));
> -	if (ret) {
> +	if (generic_check_addressable(sb->s_blocksize_bits,
> +				      ext4_blocks_count(es))) {
>  		ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "filesystem"
>  			 " too large to mount safely on this system");
>  		if (sizeof(sector_t) < 8)

you probably want to set a "ret = -EFBIG" in here.

-Eric

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/