linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.5 26/96] ext4: check for overlapping extents in ext4_valid_extent

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: <1389623099-18783-27-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:23:49 +0000
From:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.5 26/96] ext4: check for overlapping extents in ext4_valid_extent_entries()

3.5.7.29 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>

commit 5946d089379a35dda0e531710b48fca05446a196 upstream.

A corrupted ext4 may have out of order leaf extents, i.e.

extent: lblk 0--1023, len 1024, pblk 9217, flags: LEAF UNINIT
extent: lblk 1000--2047, len 1024, pblk 10241, flags: LEAF UNINIT
             ^^^^ overlap with previous extent

Reading such extent could hit BUG_ON() in ext4_es_cache_extent().

	BUG_ON(end < lblk);

The problem is that __read_extent_tree_block() tries to cache holes as
well but assumes 'lblk' is greater than 'prev' and passes underflowed
length to ext4_es_cache_extent(). Fix it by checking for overlapping
extents in ext4_valid_extent_entries().

I hit this when fuzz testing ext4, and am able to reproduce it by
modifying the on-disk extent by hand.

Also add the check for (ee_block + len - 1) in ext4_valid_extent() to
make sure the value is not overflow.

Ran xfstests on patched ext4 and no regression.

Cc: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
---
 fs/ext4/extents.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index 177f655..45de852 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -358,8 +358,10 @@ static int ext4_valid_extent(struct inode *inode, struct ext4_extent *ext)
 {
 	ext4_fsblk_t block = ext4_ext_pblock(ext);
 	int len = ext4_ext_get_actual_len(ext);
+	ext4_lblk_t lblock = le32_to_cpu(ext->ee_block);
+	ext4_lblk_t last = lblock + len - 1;
 
-	if (len == 0)
+	if (lblock > last)
 		return 0;
 	return ext4_data_block_valid(EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb), block, len);
 }
@@ -385,11 +387,26 @@ static int ext4_valid_extent_entries(struct inode *inode,
 	if (depth == 0) {
 		/* leaf entries */
 		struct ext4_extent *ext = EXT_FIRST_EXTENT(eh);
+		struct ext4_super_block *es = EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_es;
+		ext4_fsblk_t pblock = 0;
+		ext4_lblk_t lblock = 0;
+		ext4_lblk_t prev = 0;
+		int len = 0;
 		while (entries) {
 			if (!ext4_valid_extent(inode, ext))
 				return 0;
+
+			/* Check for overlapping extents */
+			lblock = le32_to_cpu(ext->ee_block);
+			len = ext4_ext_get_actual_len(ext);
+			if ((lblock <= prev) && prev) {
+				pblock = ext4_ext_pblock(ext);
+				es->s_last_error_block = cpu_to_le64(pblock);
+				return 0;
+			}
 			ext++;
 			entries--;
+			prev = lblock + len - 1;
 		}
 	} else {
 		struct ext4_extent_idx *ext_idx = EXT_FIRST_INDEX(eh);
-- 
1.8.3.2

--
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/