linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix unaligned field offset in 32-bits platform

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]

Message-ID: <ZApxy2u9j3yKFRyS@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 15:54:51 -0800
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     'Chao Yu' <chao@...nel.org>,
        "linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhiguo Niu <zhiguo.niu@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix unaligned field offset in 32-bits platform

On 03/08, David Laight wrote:
> From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
> > Sent: 07 March 2023 15:14
> > 
> > F2FS-fs (dm-x): inconsistent rbtree, cur(3470333575168) next(3320009719808)
> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > kernel BUG at fs/f2fs/gc.c:602!
> > Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
> > PC is at get_victim_by_default+0x13c0/0x1498
> > LR is at f2fs_check_rb_tree_consistence+0xc4/0xd4
> > ....
> > [<c04d98b0>] (get_victim_by_default) from [<c04d4f44>] (f2fs_gc+0x220/0x6cc)
> > [<c04d4f44>] (f2fs_gc) from [<c04d4780>] (gc_thread_func+0x2ac/0x708)
> > [<c04d4780>] (gc_thread_func) from [<c015c774>] (kthread+0x1a8/0x1b4)
> > [<c015c774>] (kthread) from [<c01010b4>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20)
> > 
> > The reason is there is __packed attribute in struct rb_entry, but there
> > is no __packed attribute in struct victim_entry, so wrong offset of key
> > field will be parsed in struct rb_entry in f2fs_check_rb_tree_consistence,
> > it describes memory layouts of struct rb_entry and struct victim_entry in
> > 32-bits platform as below:
> > 
> > struct rb_entry {
> >    [0] struct rb_node rb_node;
> >        union {
> >            struct {...};
> >   [12]     unsigned long long key;
> >        } __packed;
> 
> This __packed removes the 4-byte pad before the union.
> I bet it should be removed...

struct rb_node {
        unsigned long  __rb_parent_color;
        struct rb_node *rb_right;
        struct rb_node *rb_left;
} __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(long))));

Hmm, isn't this aligned to 32bits originally? Why does 32bits pad 4-bytes
if we remove __packed?

> 
> > }
> > size of struct rb_entry: 20
> > 
> > struct victim_entry {
> >    [0] struct rb_node rb_node;
> >        union {
> >            struct {...};
> >   [16]     struct victim_info vi;
> >        };
> >   [32] struct list_head list;
> > }
> > size of struct victim_entry: 40
> > 
> > This patch tries to add __packed attribute in below structure:
> > - discard_info, discard_cmd
> > - extent_info, extent_node
> > - victim_info, victim_entry
> > in order to fix this unaligned field offset issue in 32-bits platform.
> 
> Have you looked at the amount of extra code that gets generated
> on systems that fault misaligned accesses?
> 
> Plausibly adding __packed __aligned(4) will restrict the compiler
> to just aligning 64bit items on 32bit boundaries.
> But even then is you pass the address of a misaligned structure
> to another function it will fault later of.
> 
> You haven't actually said where the misalignment comes from.
> If the code is doing (foo *)(ptr + 1) then that is broken
> when the alignments of 'ptr' and 'foo' differ.

IIUC, the problem comes since we access the same object with two structures
to handle rb_tree.

E.g.,

[struct extent_node]                   [struct rb_entry]
struct rb_node rb_node;                struct rb_node rb_node;
                                       union {
struct extent_info ei;                   struct {
  unsigned int fofs;                       unsigned int ofs;
  unsigned int len;                        unsigned int len;
                                         };
                                         unsigned long long key;
                                       } __packed;

So, I think if we get a different offset of fofs or ofs between in
extent_node and rb_entry, further work'll access a wrong memory since
we simply cast the object pointer between two.

> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)