linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][udf-next] udf: don't call mark_buffer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <C9E129B8-B914-4E9B-8AAF-76C64E9D8F8B@digidescorp.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 05:27:34 -0600
From:   Steve Magnani <steve.magnani@...idescorp.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][udf-next] udf: don't call mark_buffer_dirty on a null bh pointer


> On Feb 20, 2019, at 3:50 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue 19-02-19 08:17:09, Steve Magnani wrote:
>>> On 2/19/19 8:02 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> On Tue 19-02-19 11:44:03, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>> 
>>>> There is a null check on the pointer bh to avoid a null pointer dereference
>>>> on bh->b_data however later bh is passed to mark_buffer_dirty that can also
>>>> cause a null pointer dereference on bh.  Avoid this potential null pointer
>>>> dereference by moving the call to mark_buffer_dirty inside the null checked
>>>> block.
>>>> 
>>>> Fixes: e8b4274735e4 ("udf: finalize integrity descriptor before writeback")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>> Thanks for the patch! In fact it is the 'if (bh)' check that's
>>> unnecessarily defensive (we cannot have sbi->s_lvid_dirty and
>>> !sbi->s_lvid_bh). So I'll just drop that check (attached patch).
>>> 
>>>                                Honza
>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/udf/super.c | 12 ++++++------
>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/fs/udf/super.c b/fs/udf/super.c
>>>> index a6940d90bedd..b7e9a83d39db 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/udf/super.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/udf/super.c
>>>> @@ -2336,13 +2336,13 @@ static int udf_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
>>>>              lvid = (struct logicalVolIntegrityDesc *)bh->b_data;
>>>>              udf_finalize_lvid(lvid);
>>>> -        }
>>>> -        /*
>>>> -         * Blockdevice will be synced later so we don't have to submit
>>>> -         * the buffer for IO
>>>> -         */
>>>> -        mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
>>>> +            /*
>>>> +             * Blockdevice will be synced later so we don't have
>>>> +             * to submit the buffer for IO
>>>> +             */
>>>> +            mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
>>>> +        }
>>>>          sbi->s_lvid_dirty = 0;
>>>>      }
>>>>      mutex_unlock(&sbi->s_alloc_mutex);
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.20.1
>>>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Steven J. Magnani <steve@...idescorp.com>
> 
> Is this Reviewed-by for my fixup or the Colin's? Because I've decided to
> rather remove the 'if (bh)' check completely since it is pointless...
> 
>                                Honza
> -- 

Sorry, I realized on rereading that this could be ambiguous. The R-B is for your patch.

Steve