linux-kernel - [patch][regression after 3.1] minixfs: misplaced checks lead to dentry leak

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120104105103.GE23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:51:03 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>
Subject: [patch][regression after 3.1] minixfs: misplaced checks lead to
 dentry leak

bitmap size sanity checks should be done *before* allocating ->s_root;
there their cleanup on failure would be correct.  As it is, we do iput()
on root inode, but leak the root dentry...

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>

I realize that we are *very* late in this cycle, but this is (a) obvious and
obviously affecting only minixfs and (b) introduced in this cycle.

diff --git a/fs/minix/inode.c b/fs/minix/inode.c
index c811c19..8e4f5d8 100644
--- a/fs/minix/inode.c
+++ b/fs/minix/inode.c
@@ -262,23 +262,6 @@ static int minix_fill_super(struct super_block *s, void *data, int silent)
 		goto out_no_root;
 	}
 
-	ret = -ENOMEM;
-	s->s_root = d_alloc_root(root_inode);
-	if (!s->s_root)
-		goto out_iput;
-
-	if (!(s->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
-		if (sbi->s_version != MINIX_V3) /* s_state is now out from V3 sb */
-			ms->s_state &= ~MINIX_VALID_FS;
-		mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
-	}
-	if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_VALID_FS))
-		printk("MINIX-fs: mounting unchecked file system, "
-			"running fsck is recommended\n");
- 	else if (sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_ERROR_FS)
-		printk("MINIX-fs: mounting file system with errors, "
-			"running fsck is recommended\n");
-
 	/* Apparently minix can create filesystems that allocate more blocks for
 	 * the bitmaps than needed.  We simply ignore that, but verify it didn't
 	 * create one with not enough blocks and bail out if so.
@@ -299,6 +282,23 @@ static int minix_fill_super(struct super_block *s, void *data, int silent)
 		goto out_iput;
 	}
 
+	ret = -ENOMEM;
+	s->s_root = d_alloc_root(root_inode);
+	if (!s->s_root)
+		goto out_iput;
+
+	if (!(s->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
+		if (sbi->s_version != MINIX_V3) /* s_state is now out from V3 sb */
+			ms->s_state &= ~MINIX_VALID_FS;
+		mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
+	}
+	if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_VALID_FS))
+		printk("MINIX-fs: mounting unchecked file system, "
+			"running fsck is recommended\n");
+ 	else if (sbi->s_mount_state & MINIX_ERROR_FS)
+		printk("MINIX-fs: mounting file system with errors, "
+			"running fsck is recommended\n");
+
 	return 0;
 
 out_iput:
--
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/