linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:LINE!

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: <20190610231403.GZ63833@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 16:14:04 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Anand Jain <anand.jain@...cle.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+5b658d997a83984507a6@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:LINE!

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 06:52:13PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 06:28:02PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > Normally the GFP_NOFS allocations do not fail so I think the fuzzer
> > > environment is tuned to allow that, which is fine for coverage but does
> > > not happen in practice. This will be fixed eventually.
> > 
> > Isn't GFP_NOFS more restricted than normal allocations?  Are these
> > allocations accounted against memcg? It's easy to fail any allocation
> > within a memory container.
> 
> https://lwn.net/Articles/723317/ The 'too small to fail' and some
> unwritten semantics of GFP_NOFS but I think you're right about the
> memory controler that can fail any allocation though.
> 
> Error handling is being improved over time, the memory allocation
> failures are in some cases hard and this one would need to update some
> logic so it's not a oneliner.
> 

This bug is still there.  In btrfs_close_one_device():

	if (device->name) {
		name = rcu_string_strdup(device->name->str, GFP_NOFS);
		BUG_ON(!name); /* -ENOMEM */
		rcu_assign_pointer(new_device->name, name);
	}

It assumes that the memory allocation succeeded.

See syzbot report from v5.2-rc3 here: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=CrashReport&x=16c839c1a00000

Is there any plan to fix this?

- Eric