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  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]
Date:	Mon,  7 Jul 2014 16:58:11 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>,
	Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@...tank.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.10 26/53] rbd: handle parent_overlap on writes correctly

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

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

From: Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>

commit 9638556a276125553549fdfe349c464481ec2f39 upstream.

The following check in rbd_img_obj_request_submit()

    rbd_dev->parent_overlap <= obj_request->img_offset

allows the fall through to the non-layered write case even if both
parent_overlap and obj_request->img_offset belong to the same RADOS
object.  This leads to data corruption, because the area to the left of
parent_overlap ends up unconditionally zero-filled instead of being
populated with parent data.  Suppose we want to write 1M to offset 6M
of image bar, which is a clone of foo@...p; object_size is 4M,
parent_overlap is 5M:

    rbd_data.<id>.0000000000000001
     ---------------------|----------------------|------------
    | should be copyup'ed | should be zeroed out | write ...
     ---------------------|----------------------|------------
   4M                    5M                     6M
                    parent_overlap    obj_request->img_offset

4..5M should be copyup'ed from foo, yet it is zero-filled, just like
5..6M is.

Given that the only striping mode kernel client currently supports is
chunking (i.e. stripe_unit == object_size, stripe_count == 1), round
parent_overlap up to the next object boundary for the purposes of the
overlap check.

Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@...tank.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/block/rbd.c |   10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
@@ -1385,6 +1385,14 @@ static bool obj_request_exists_test(stru
 	return test_bit(OBJ_REQ_EXISTS, &obj_request->flags) != 0;
 }
 
+static bool obj_request_overlaps_parent(struct rbd_obj_request *obj_request)
+{
+	struct rbd_device *rbd_dev = obj_request->img_request->rbd_dev;
+
+	return obj_request->img_offset <
+	    round_up(rbd_dev->parent_overlap, rbd_obj_bytes(&rbd_dev->header));
+}
+
 static void rbd_obj_request_get(struct rbd_obj_request *obj_request)
 {
 	dout("%s: obj %p (was %d)\n", __func__, obj_request,
@@ -2682,7 +2690,7 @@ static int rbd_img_obj_request_submit(st
 	 */
 	if (!img_request_write_test(img_request) ||
 		!img_request_layered_test(img_request) ||
-		rbd_dev->parent_overlap <= obj_request->img_offset ||
+		!obj_request_overlaps_parent(obj_request) ||
 		((known = obj_request_known_test(obj_request)) &&
 			obj_request_exists_test(obj_request))) {
 


--
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