linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] reiserfs: UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in direntry_create

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]

Date:   Sat, 4 Nov 2023 18:28:39 +0530
From:   Bragatheswaran Manickavel <bragathemanick0908@...il.com>
To:     reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+e5bb9eb00a5a5ed2a9a2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] reiserfs: UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in
 direntry_create_vi


On 26/10/23 18:26, Bragatheswaran Manickavel wrote:
> deh defined as an array of type __u16[], and issue is
> triggered when it's trying to access an element at
> index 1, which is out of bounds because the array
> has only one element at index 0.
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+e5bb9eb00a5a5ed2a9a2@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e5bb9eb00a5a5ed2a9a2
> Signed-off-by: Bragatheswaran Manickavel <bragathemanick0908@...il.com>
> ---
>   fs/reiserfs/item_ops.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/item_ops.c b/fs/reiserfs/item_ops.c
> index 3a5a752d96c7..ccf547c5e8e1 100644
> --- a/fs/reiserfs/item_ops.c
> +++ b/fs/reiserfs/item_ops.c
> @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ static int direntry_create_vi(struct virtual_node *vn,
>   				  vn->vn_mode);
>   		dir_u->entry_sizes[i] =
>   		    (j ? deh_location(&deh[j - 1]) : ih_item_len(vi->vi_ih)) -
> -		    deh_location(&deh[j]) + DEH_SIZE;
> +		    deh_location(&deh[j - 1]) + DEH_SIZE;
>   	}
>   
>   	size += (dir_u->entry_count * sizeof(short));

Could someone help in reviewing the changes. I see reiserfs was marked with
obsolete but still wanted to know whether this patch is correct and can be
taken (if possible)

Thanks,
Bragathe