| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20131113081940.GB10269@birch.djwong.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:19:40 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To: David Turner <novalis@...alis.org>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Mark Harris <mhlk@....us>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ext4: Fix handling of extended tv_sec (bug 23732)
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:00:15AM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> In ext4, the bottom two bits of {a,c,m}time_extra are used to extend
> the {a,c,m}time fields, deferring the year 2038 problem to the year
> 2446.
>
> When decoding these extended fields, for times whose bottom 32 bits
> would represent a negative number, sign extension causes the 64-bit
> extended timestamp to be negative as well, which is not what's
> intended. This patch corrects that issue, so that the only negative
> {a,c,m}times are those between 1901 and 1970 (as per 32-bit signed
> timestamps).
>
> Some older kernels might have written pre-1970 dates with 1,1 in the
> extra bits. This patch treats those incorrectly-encoded dates as
> pre-1970, instead of post-2311, until kernel 4.20 is released.
> Hopefully by then e2fsck will have fixed up the bad data.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Turner <novalis@...alis.org>
> Reported-by: Mark Harris <mh8928@...oo.com>
> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23732
> ---
> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> index 18aa56b..7d5e019 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include <linux/seqlock.h>
> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> #include <linux/timer.h>
> +#include <linux/version.h>
> #include <linux/wait.h>
> #include <linux/blockgroup_lock.h>
> #include <linux/percpu_counter.h>
> @@ -713,38 +714,54 @@ struct move_extent {
> sizeof((ext4_inode)->field)) \
> <= (EXT4_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE + \
> (einode)->i_extra_isize)) \
> +
> /*
> - * We use the bottom 34 bits of the signed 64-bit time value, with
> - * the top two of these bits in the bottom of extra. This leads
> - * to a slightly odd encoding, which works like this:
> + * We need is an encoding that preserves the times for extra epoch "00":
> *
> - * extra msb of
> - * epoch 32-bit
> - * bits time decoded 64-bit tv_sec valid time range
> - * 0 0 0 0x000000000..0x07fffffff 1970-01-01..2038-01-19
> - * 0 0 1 0x080000000..0x0ffffffff 2038-01-19..2106-02-07
> - * 0 1 0 0x100000000..0x17fffffff 2106-02-07..2174-02-25
> - * 0 1 1 0x180000000..0x1ffffffff 2174-02-25..2242-03-16
> - * 1 0 0 0x200000000..0x27fffffff 2242-03-16..2310-04-04
> - * 1 0 1 0x280000000..0x2ffffffff 2310-04-04..2378-04-22
> - * 1 1 0 0x300000000..0x37fffffff 2378-04-22..2446-05-10
> -
> - * 1 1 1 -0x80000000..-0x00000001 1901-12-13..1969-12-31
> + * extra msb of adjust for signed
> + * epoch 32-bit 32-bit tv_sec to
> + * bits time decoded 64-bit tv_sec 64-bit tv_sec valid time range
> + * 0 0 1 -0x80000000..-0x00000001 0x000000000 1901-12-13..1969-12-31
> + * 0 0 0 0x000000000..0x07fffffff 0x000000000 1970-01-01..2038-01-19
> + * 0 1 1 0x080000000..0x0ffffffff 0x100000000 2038-01-19..2106-02-07
> + * 0 1 0 0x100000000..0x17fffffff 0x100000000 2106-02-07..2174-02-25
> + * 1 0 1 0x180000000..0x1ffffffff 0x200000000 2174-02-25..2242-03-16
> + * 1 0 0 0x200000000..0x27fffffff 0x200000000 2242-03-16..2310-04-04
> + * 1 1 1 0x280000000..0x2ffffffff 0x300000000 2310-04-04..2378-04-22
> + * 1 1 0 0x300000000..0x37fffffff 0x300000000 2378-04-22..2446-05-10
> + *
> + * Note that previous versions of the kernel on 64-bit systems would
> + * incorrectly use extra epoch bits 1,1 for dates between 1901 and
> + * 1970. e2fsck will correct this, assuming that it is run on the
> + * affected filesystem before 2311.
Given the table, should this be "before 2310-04-04"?
--D
> */
>
> static inline __le32 ext4_encode_extra_time(struct timespec *time)
> {
> - return cpu_to_le32((sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4 ?
> - (time->tv_sec >> 32) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK : 0) |
> - ((time->tv_nsec << EXT4_EPOCH_BITS) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK));
> + u32 extra = sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4 ?
> + ((time->tv_sec - (s32)time->tv_sec) >> 32) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK : 0;
> + return cpu_to_le32(extra | (time->tv_nsec << EXT4_EPOCH_BITS));
> }
>
> static inline void ext4_decode_extra_time(struct timespec *time, __le32 extra)
> {
> - if (sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4)
> - time->tv_sec |= (__u64)(le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK)
> - << 32;
> - time->tv_nsec = (le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK) >> EXT4_EPOCH_BITS;
> + if (unlikely(sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4 &&
> + (extra & cpu_to_le32(EXT4_EPOCH_MASK)))) {
> +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(4,20,0)
> + /* Handle legacy encoding of pre-1970 dates with epoch
> + * bits 1,1. We assume that by kernel version 4.20,
> + * everyone will have run fsck over the affected
> + * filesystems to correct the problem.
> + */
> + u64 extra_bits = le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK;
> + if (extra_bits == 3)
> + extra_bits = 0;
> + time->tv_sec += extra_bits << 32;
> +#else
> + time->tv_sec += (u64)(le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK) << 32;
> +#endif
> + }
> + time->tv_nsec = (le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK) >> EXT4_EPOCH_BITS;
> }
>
> #define EXT4_INODE_SET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode) \
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists