[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvqP/f2P2YgIIO9U@ZenIV>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 19:27:09 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-nilfs <linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiacheng Xu <stitch@....edu.cn>,
Mudong Liang <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: fix use-after-free bug in nilfs_mdt_destroy()
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 02:51:14AM +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> In alloc_inode(), inode_init_always() could return -ENOMEM if
> security_inode_alloc() fails. If this happens for nilfs2,
> nilfs_free_inode() is called without initializing inode->i_private and
> nilfs_free_inode() wrongly calls nilfs_mdt_destroy(), which frees
> uninitialized inode->i_private and can trigger a crash.
>
> Fix this bug by initializing inode->i_private in nilfs_alloc_inode().
>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAFcO6XOcf1Jj2SeGt=jJV59wmhESeSKpfR0omdFRq+J9nD1vfQ@mail.gmail.com
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211011030956.2459172-1-mudongliangabcd@gmail.com
> Reported-by: butt3rflyh4ck <butterflyhuangxx@...il.com>
> Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@...il.com>
> Reported-by: Jiacheng Xu <stitch@....edu.cn>
> Reported-by: Mudong Liang <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> ---
> fs/nilfs2/super.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/super.c b/fs/nilfs2/super.c
> index ba108f915391..aca5614f1b44 100644
> --- a/fs/nilfs2/super.c
> +++ b/fs/nilfs2/super.c
> @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ struct inode *nilfs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> ii->i_cno = 0;
> ii->i_assoc_inode = NULL;
> ii->i_bmap = &ii->i_bmap_data;
> + ii->vfs_inode.i_private = NULL;
> return &ii->vfs_inode;
> }
FWIW, I think it's better to deal with that in inode_init_always(), but
not just moving ->i_private initialization up - we ought to move
security_inode_alloc() to the very end. No sense playing whack-a-mole
with further possible bugs of that sort...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists