linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.13.y-ckt 15/53] ext4: be more strict when migrating to non-extent based file

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: <1438893498-17157-16-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com>
Date:	Thu,  6 Aug 2015 13:37:40 -0700
From:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.13.y-ckt 15/53] ext4: be more strict when migrating to non-extent based file

3.13.11-ckt25 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

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

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

commit d6f123a9297496ad0b6335fe881504c4b5b2a5e5 upstream.

Currently the check in ext4_ind_migrate() is not enough before doing the
real conversion:

a) delayed allocated extents could bypass the check on eh->eh_entries
   and eh->eh_depth

This can be demonstrated by this script

  xfs_io -fc "pwrite 0 4k" -c "pwrite 8k 4k" /mnt/ext4/testfile
  chattr -e /mnt/ext4/testfile

where testfile has two extents but still be converted to non-extent
based file format.

b) only extent length is checked but not the offset, which would result
   in data lose (delalloc) or fs corruption (nodelalloc), because
   non-extent based file only supports at most (12 + 2^10 + 2^20 + 2^30)
   blocks

This can be demostrated by

  xfs_io -fc "pwrite 5T 4k" /mnt/ext4/testfile
  chattr -e /mnt/ext4/testfile
  sync

If delalloc is enabled, dmesg prints
  EXT4-fs warning (device dm-4): ext4_block_to_path:105: block 1342177280 > max in inode 53
  EXT4-fs (dm-4): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 53 at logical offset 1342177280 with max blocks 1 with error 5
  EXT4-fs (dm-4): This should not happen!! Data will be lost

If delalloc is disabled, e2fsck -nf shows corruption
  Inode 53, i_size is 5497558142976, should be 4096.  Fix? no

Fix the two issues by

a) forcing all delayed allocation blocks to be allocated before checking
   eh->eh_depth and eh->eh_entries
b) limiting the last logical block of the extent is within direct map

Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
 fs/ext4/migrate.c | 12 +++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/migrate.c b/fs/ext4/migrate.c
index 2ae73a8..05f8414 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/migrate.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/migrate.c
@@ -616,6 +616,7 @@ int ext4_ind_migrate(struct inode *inode)
 	struct ext4_inode_info		*ei = EXT4_I(inode);
 	struct ext4_extent		*ex;
 	unsigned int			i, len;
+	ext4_lblk_t			end;
 	ext4_fsblk_t			blk;
 	handle_t			*handle;
 	int				ret;
@@ -629,6 +630,14 @@ int ext4_ind_migrate(struct inode *inode)
 				       EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_BIGALLOC))
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
+	/*
+	 * In order to get correct extent info, force all delayed allocation
+	 * blocks to be allocated, otherwise delayed allocation blocks may not
+	 * be reflected and bypass the checks on extent header.
+	 */
+	if (test_opt(inode->i_sb, DELALLOC))
+		ext4_alloc_da_blocks(inode);
+
 	handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, EXT4_HT_MIGRATE, 1);
 	if (IS_ERR(handle))
 		return PTR_ERR(handle);
@@ -650,7 +659,8 @@ int ext4_ind_migrate(struct inode *inode)
 	else {
 		len = le16_to_cpu(ex->ee_len);
 		blk = ext4_ext_pblock(ex);
-		if (len > EXT4_NDIR_BLOCKS) {
+		end = le32_to_cpu(ex->ee_block) + len - 1;
+		if (end >= EXT4_NDIR_BLOCKS) {
 			ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
 			goto errout;
 		}
-- 
1.9.1

--
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/