[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAC2o3D+X48sR4kFi9nS_atpTuSRWDnX92RD3uCUeh9AHXGnaNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 22:08:04 +0800
From: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>
To: Andrew Price <anprice@...hat.com>
Cc: rpeterso@...hat.com, agruenba@...hat.com, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] gfs2: gfs2_read_sb: put gfs2_assert
inside the loop
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:23 PM Andrew Price <anprice@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2020 07:31, Fox Chen wrote:
> > for (x = 2;; x++) {
> > ...
> > gfs2_assert(sdp, x <= GFS2_MAX_META_HEIGHT); <--- after
> > ...
> > if (d != sdp->sd_heightsize[x - 1] || m)
> > break;
> > sdp->sd_heightsize[x] = space;
> > }
> >
> > sdp->sd_max_height = x
> > gfs2_assert(sdp, sdp->sd_max_height <= GFS2_MAX_META_HEIGHT) <--- before
> >
> > Before this patch, gfs2_assert is put outside of the loop of
> > sdp->sd_heightsize[x] calculation. When something goes wrong,
>
> So this looks related to one of the recent syzbot reports, where the
> "something goes wrong" is the block size in the on-disk superblock was
> zeroed and that leads eventually to this out-of-bounds write. The
> correct fix in that case would be to add a validity check for the block
> size in gfs2_check_sb().
>
Yes, I saw this bug from the syzbot report and I though instead of
KASAN gfs2_assert should be able to catch it so I proposed this patch.
:)
thank you both for your comments.
fox
Powered by blists - more mailing lists