[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFcO6XO0GR8GBVD7hT8VL5qey3cCYriMqvt0Dan72i5yVP6FxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:43:10 +0800
From: butt3rflyh4ck <butterflyhuangxx@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
djwong@...nel.org
Subject: Re: A shift-out-of-bounds in minix_statfs in fs/minix/inode.c
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 1:37 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 01:14:06AM +0800, butt3rflyh4ck wrote:
> > ms = (struct minix_super_block *) bh->b_data; /// --------------> set
> > minix_super_block pointer
> > sbi->s_ms = ms;
> > sbi->s_sbh = bh;
> > sbi->s_mount_state = ms->s_state;
> > sbi->s_ninodes = ms->s_ninodes;
> > sbi->s_nzones = ms->s_nzones;
> > sbi->s_imap_blocks = ms->s_imap_blocks;
> > sbi->s_zmap_blocks = ms->s_zmap_blocks;
> > sbi->s_firstdatazone = ms->s_firstdatazone;
> > sbi->s_log_zone_size = ms->s_log_zone_size; // ------------------>
> > set sbi->s_log_zone_size
>
> So what you're saying is that if you construct a malicious minix image,
> you can produce undefined behaviour?
Yes, the attachment is a reproduction. just compile it and run.
>That's not something we're
> traditionally interested in, unless the filesystem is one customarily
> used for data interchange (like FAT or iso9660).
>
These file systems are my fuzzing targets.
Regards,
butt3rflyh4ck.
--
Active Defense Lab of Venustech
Powered by blists - more mailing lists