linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: fix NULL pointer dereference in nilfs_palloc_commit_free

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKFNMokh1fQNyqVCMWoQVnRnXf65j__Op9p+a3Prz_qk-YnoVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Nov 2022 16:24:43 +0900
From:   Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>
To:     "zhangpeng (AS)" <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>
Cc:     ye.xingchen@....com.cn, chi.minghao@....com.cn,
        vishal.moola@...il.com, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+ebe05ee8e98f755f61d0@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: fix NULL pointer dereference in nilfs_palloc_commit_free_entry()

On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 3:38 PM zhangpeng (AS)  wrote:
>
> Hi, ZhangPeng,
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:39 AM Ryusuke Konishi  wrote:
> As for the current outlook, it seems difficult to eliminate
> duplication of the virtual block number, so I think we will call
> nilfs_error() as follows:
>
>         nilfs_dat_commit_entry(dat, req);
> +        if (unlikely(req->pr_desc_bh == NULL || req->pr_bitmap_bh == NULL)) {
> +                nilfs_error(dat->i_sb,
> +                            "state inconsistency due to duplicate use
> of vblocknr = %llu",
> +                            (unsigned long long)req->pr_entry_nr);
> +                return;
> +       }
>         nilfs_palloc_commit_free_entry(dat, req);
>
> In that case, I would like to modify your patch and send it upstream
> as your patch.  Is that OK ?
> Or do you want to fix it more by yourself ?
>
> Thanks,
> Ryusuke Konishi
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Please modify my patch and send it upstream.
>
> That is really a complicated problem. Duplication of the virtual block
> number is not easy to fix. It is necessary to prevent further operations
>  of the filesystem when the filesystem has a fatal flaw. I will continue
>  to follow up.

All right, thanks!

Ryusuke Konishi