linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 5/5] erofs: use separate xattr parsers for listxattr/getxattr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <76ecba87-256c-2537-cbee-9cef6c0ce714@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 22:27:25 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>, xiang@...nel.org,
        chao@...nel.org, huyue2@...lpad.com, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/5] erofs: use separate xattr parsers for
 listxattr/getxattr



On 2023/6/12 20:37, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> There's a callback styled xattr parser, i.e. xattr_foreach(), which is
> shared among listxattr and getxattr.  Convert it to two separate xattr
> parsers for listxattr and getxattr.
Convert it to two separate xattr parsers to serve listxattr and getxattr
for better readability.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---

...

> +
> +static int erofs_listxattr_foreach(struct erofs_xattr_iter *it)
>   {
> -	unsigned int base_index = entry->e_name_index;
> -	unsigned int prefix_len, infix_len = 0;
> +	struct erofs_xattr_entry entry;
> +	unsigned int base_index, prefix_len, infix_len = 0;
>   	const char *prefix, *infix = NULL;
> +	int err;
>   
> -	if (entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
> +	/* 1. handle xattr entry */
> +	entry = *(struct erofs_xattr_entry *)
> +			(it->kaddr + erofs_blkoff(it->sb, it->pos));
> +	it->pos += sizeof(struct erofs_xattr_entry);
> +
> +	base_index = entry.e_name_index;
> +	if (entry.e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
>   		struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(it->sb);
>   		struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *pf = sbi->xattr_prefixes +
> -			(entry->e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
> +			(entry.e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
>   
>   		if (pf >= sbi->xattr_prefixes + sbi->xattr_prefix_count)
> -			return 1;
> +			return 0;
>   		infix = pf->prefix->infix;
>   		infix_len = pf->infix_len;
>   		base_index = pf->prefix->base_index;
> @@ -385,53 +225,103 @@ static int xattr_entrylist(struct erofs_xattr_iter *it,
>   
>   	prefix = erofs_xattr_prefix(base_index, it->dentry);
>   	if (!prefix)
> -		return 1;
> +		return 0;
>   	prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
>   
>   	if (!it->buffer) {
> -		it->buffer_ofs += prefix_len + infix_len +
> -					entry->e_name_len + 1;
> -		return 1;
> +		it->buffer_ofs += prefix_len + infix_len + entry.e_name_len + 1;

Overly 80 chars?

> +		return 0;
>   	}
>   
>   	if (it->buffer_ofs + prefix_len + infix_len +
> -		+ entry->e_name_len + 1 > it->buffer_size)
> +		entry.e_name_len + 1 > it->buffer_size)
>   		return -ERANGE;
>   
>   	memcpy(it->buffer + it->buffer_ofs, prefix, prefix_len);
>   	memcpy(it->buffer + it->buffer_ofs + prefix_len, infix, infix_len);
>   	it->buffer_ofs += prefix_len + infix_len;
> -	return 0;
> -}
>   
> -static int xattr_namelist(struct erofs_xattr_iter *it,
> -			  unsigned int processed, char *buf, unsigned int len)
> -{
> -	memcpy(it->buffer + it->buffer_ofs, buf, len);
> -	it->buffer_ofs += len;
> +	/* 2. handle xattr name */
> +	err = erofs_xattr_copy_to_buffer(it, entry.e_name_len);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	it->buffer[it->buffer_ofs++] = '\0';
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> -static int xattr_skipvalue(struct erofs_xattr_iter *it,
> -			   unsigned int value_sz)
> +static int erofs_getxattr_foreach(struct erofs_xattr_iter *it)
>   {
> -	it->buffer[it->buffer_ofs++] = '\0';
> -	return 1;
> -}
> +	struct super_block *sb = it->sb;
> +	struct erofs_xattr_entry entry;
> +	unsigned int slice, processed, value_sz;
> +	void *src;
>   
> -static const struct xattr_iter_handlers list_xattr_handlers = {
> -	.entry = xattr_entrylist,
> -	.name = xattr_namelist,
> -	.alloc_buffer = xattr_skipvalue,
> -	.value = NULL
> -};
> +	/* 1. handle xattr entry */
> +	entry = *(struct erofs_xattr_entry *)
> +			(it->kaddr + erofs_blkoff(sb, it->pos));
> +	it->pos += sizeof(struct erofs_xattr_entry);
> +	value_sz = le16_to_cpu(entry.e_value_size);
> +
> +	/* should also match the infix for long name prefixes */
> +	if (entry.e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX) {
> +		struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(sb);
> +		struct erofs_xattr_prefix_item *pf = sbi->xattr_prefixes +
> +			(entry.e_name_index & EROFS_XATTR_LONG_PREFIX_MASK);
> +
> +		if (pf >= sbi->xattr_prefixes + sbi->xattr_prefix_count)
> +			return -ENOATTR;
> +
> +		if (it->index != pf->prefix->base_index ||
> +		    it->name.len != entry.e_name_len + pf->infix_len)
> +			return -ENOATTR;
> +
> +		if (memcmp(it->name.name, pf->prefix->infix, pf->infix_len))
> +			return -ENOATTR;
> +
> +		it->infix_len = pf->infix_len;
> +	} else {
> +		if (it->index != entry.e_name_index ||
> +		    it->name.len != entry.e_name_len)
> +			return -ENOATTR;
> +
> +		it->infix_len = 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* 2. handle xattr name */
> +	for (processed = 0; processed < entry.e_name_len; processed += slice) {
> +		it->kaddr = erofs_bread(&it->buf, erofs_blknr(sb, it->pos),
> +					EROFS_KMAP);
> +		if (IS_ERR(it->kaddr))
> +			return PTR_ERR(it->kaddr);
> +
> +		src = it->kaddr + erofs_blkoff(sb, it->pos);
> +		slice = min_t(unsigned int,
> +				sb->s_blocksize - erofs_blkoff(sb, it->pos),
> +				entry.e_name_len - processed);
> +		if (memcmp(it->name.name + it->infix_len + processed, src, slice))

Overly 80 chars?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang