linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: Fix nilfs_sufile_mark_dirty() not set segment usage as dirty

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]

Date:   Sat, 19 Nov 2022 13:28:53 +0800
From:   Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     <linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: Fix nilfs_sufile_mark_dirty() not set segment
 usage as dirty


On 2022/11/19 13:24, Chen Zhongjin wrote:
> On 2022/11/19 6:11, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:33:04 +0800 Chen Zhongjin 
>> <chenzhongjin@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In nilfs_sufile_mark_dirty(), the buffer and inode are set dirty, but
>>> nilfs_segment_usage is not set dirty, which makes it can be found by
>>> nilfs_sufile_alloc() because it checks nilfs_segment_usage_clean(su).
>>>
>>> This will cause the problem reported by syzkaller:
>>> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=c7c4748e11ffcc367cef04f76e02e931833cbd24 
>>>
>>>
>>> It's because the case starts with segbuf1.segnum = 3, nextnum = 4, and
>>> nilfs_sufile_alloc() not called to allocate a new segment.
>>>
>>> The first time nilfs_segctor_extend_segments() allocated segment
>>> segbuf2.segnum = segbuf1.nextnum = 4, then nilfs_sufile_alloc() found
>>> nextnextnum = 4 segment because its su is not set dirty.
>>> So segbuf2.nextnum = 4, which causes next segbuf3.segnum = 4.
>>>
>>> sb_getblk() will get same bh for segbuf2 and segbuf3, and this bh is
>>> added to both buffer lists of two segbuf.
>>> It makes the list head of second list linked to the first one. When
>>> iterating the first one, it will access and deref the head of second,
>>> which causes NULL pointer dereference.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 9ff05123e3bf ("nilfs2: segment constructor")
>> Merged in 2009!
>
> Yes, seems it is introduced at the beginning of this file and the 
> function called nilfs_touch_segusage().
>
> Wired that this problem is not discovered utill now. So I'm wondering 
> that whether this is a real-world
> problem or just a use case constructed maliciously by syzkaller. But 
> according to the result of syzkaller bisection,
> this problem should have a history.
>>> --- a/fs/nilfs2/sufile.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nilfs2/sufile.c
>>> @@ -495,12 +495,18 @@ void nilfs_sufile_do_free(struct inode 
>>> *sufile, __u64 segnum,
>>>   int nilfs_sufile_mark_dirty(struct inode *sufile, __u64 segnum)
>>>   {
>>>       struct buffer_head *bh;
>>> +    void *kaddr;
>>> +    struct nilfs_segment_usage *su;
>>>       int ret;
>>>         ret = nilfs_sufile_get_segment_usage_block(sufile, segnum, 
>>> 0, &bh);
>>>       if (!ret) {
>>>           mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
>>>           nilfs_mdt_mark_dirty(sufile);
>>> +        kaddr = kmap_atomic(bh->b_page);
>>> +        su = nilfs_sufile_block_get_segment_usage(sufile, segnum, 
>>> bh, kaddr);
>>> +        nilfs_segment_usage_set_dirty(su);
>>> +        kunmap_atomic(kaddr);
>>>           brelse(bh);
>>>       }
>>>       return ret;
>> Do we feel that this fix should be backported into -stable kernels?
> Sorry that I'm not familiar with the specific use scenarios of nilfs2. 
> So I can't offer a better advice. I think if it
> is a problem that not happen easily in normal situations there's no 
> necessary to backport it to stable.

I just noticed Ryusuke's mail so let's do it as his advice.

Thanks for your time!

Best,

Chen