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: <932fdd76-b726-3e1c-90d6-28ec39eaf5e4@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 08:34:11 +0800
From:   Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
To:     Wenchao Hao <haowenchao2@...wei.com>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, louhongxiang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ceph: quota: Fix invalid pointer access in


On 11/17/23 16:53, Wenchao Hao wrote:
> On 2023/11/17 14:14, Xiubo Li wrote:
>>
>> On 11/16/23 15:09, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>>> On 2023/11/16 11:06, Xiubo Li wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/23 10:54, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>>>>> On 2023/11/15 21:34, Xiubo Li wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/15/23 21:25, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 2:17 PM Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/23 20:32, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 1:35 AM Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/23 23:31, Wenchao Hao wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This issue is reported by smatch, get_quota_realm() might 
>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> ERR_PTR, so we should using IS_ERR_OR_NULL here to check the 
>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wenchao Hao <haowenchao2@...wei.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>     fs/ceph/quota.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/quota.c b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 9d36c3532de1..c4b2929c6a83 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ bool ceph_quota_update_statfs(struct 
>>>>>>>>>>> ceph_fs_client *fsc, struct kstatfs *buf)
>>>>>>>>>>>         realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, d_inode(fsc->sb->s_root),
>>>>>>>>>>> QUOTA_GET_MAX_BYTES, true);
>>>>>>>>>>>         up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>>>>>>>>>>> -     if (!realm)
>>>>>>>>>>> +     if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(realm))
>>>>>>>>>>>                 return false;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> spin_lock(&realm->inodes_with_caps_lock);
>>>>>>>>>> Good catch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We should CC the stable mail list.
>>>>>>>>> Hi Xiubo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exactly is being fixed here? get_quota_realm() is called 
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> retry=true, which means that no errors can be returned -- 
>>>>>>>>> EAGAIN, the
>>>>>>>>> only error that get_quota_realm() can otherwise generate, 
>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>> handled internally by retrying.
>>>>>>>> Yeah, that's true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am I missing something that makes this qualify for stable?
>>>>>>>> Actually it's just for the smatch check for now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO we shouldn't depend on the 'retry', just potentially for 
>>>>>>>> new changes
>>>>>>>> in future could return a ERR_PTR and cause potential bugs.
>>>>>>> At present, ceph_quota_is_same_realm() also depends on it -- 
>>>>>>> note how
>>>>>>> old_realm isn't checked for errors at all and new_realm is only 
>>>>>>> checked
>>>>>>> for EAGAIN there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that's not worth to make it for stable, let's remove it.
>>>>>>> Yes, let's remove it.  Please update the commit message as well, so
>>>>>>> that it's clear that this is squashing a static checker warning and
>>>>>>> doesn't actually fix any immediate bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WenChao,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could update the commit comment and send the V2 ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I would update the commit comment as following:
>>>>>
>>>>> This issue is reported by smatch, get_quota_realm() might return
>>>>> ERR_PTR. It's not a immediate bug because get_quota_realm() is called
>>>>> with 'retry=true', no errors can be returned.
>>>>>
>>>>> While we still should check the return value of get_quota_realm() 
>>>>> with
>>>>> IS_ERR_OR_NULL to avoid potential bugs if get_quota_realm() is 
>>>>> changed
>>>>> to return other ERR_PTR in future.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's more, should I change the ceph_quota_is_same_realm() too?
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, please. Let's fix them all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> is_same is return as true if both old_realm and new_realm are NULL, 
>>> I do not
>>> want to change the origin logic except add check for ERR_PTR, so 
>>> following
>>> is my change:
>>>
>>> 1. make sure xxx_realm is valid before calling ceph_put_snap_realm.
>>> 2. return false if new_realm or old_realm is ERR_PTR, this is newly 
>>> added
>>>    and now we would always run with the else branch.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/quota.c b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>> index c4b2929c6a83..8da9ffb05395 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>>> @@ -290,16 +290,20 @@ bool ceph_quota_is_same_realm(struct inode 
>>> *old, struct inode *new)
>>>         new_realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, new, QUOTA_GET_ANY, false);
>>>         if (PTR_ERR(new_realm) == -EAGAIN) {
>>>                 up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>>> -               if (old_realm)
>>> +               if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(old_realm))
>>>                         ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, old_realm);
>>>                 goto restart;
>>>         }
>>> -       is_same = (old_realm == new_realm);
>>>         up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>>>
>>> -       if (old_realm)
>>> +       if (IS_ERR(new_realm))
>>> +               is_same = false;
>>> +       else
>>> +               is_same = (old_realm == new_realm);
>>> +
>>> +       if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(old_realm))
>>>                 ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, old_realm);
>>> -       if (new_realm)
>>> +       if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(new_realm))
>>>                 ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, new_realm);
>>>
>>>         return is_same;
>>>
>> If we just to fix the smatch check, how about make get_quota_realm() 
>> to return a 'int' type value and at the same time add a 'realmp' 
>> parameter ?  And just return '-EAGAIN' or '0' always.
>>
>> Then it will be something likes:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/quota.c b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>> index c4b2929c6a83..f37f5324b6a1 100644
>> --- a/fs/ceph/quota.c
>> +++ b/fs/ceph/quota.c
>> @@ -211,10 +211,9 @@ void ceph_cleanup_quotarealms_inodes(struct 
>> ceph_mds_client *mdsc)
>>    * this function will return -EAGAIN; otherwise, the snaprealms 
>> walk-through
>>    * will be restarted.
>>    */
>> -static struct ceph_snap_realm *get_quota_realm(struct 
>> ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>> -                                              struct inode *inode,
>> -                                              enum quota_get_realm 
>> which_quota,
>> -                                              bool retry)
>> +static int get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc, struct 
>> inode *inode,
>> +                          enum quota_get_realm which_quota,
>> +                          struct ceph_snap_realm **realmp, bool retry)
>>   {
>>          struct ceph_client *cl = mdsc->fsc->client;
>>          struct ceph_inode_info *ci = NULL;
>> @@ -222,8 +221,10 @@ static struct ceph_snap_realm 
>> *get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>>          struct inode *in;
>>          bool has_quota;
>>
>> +       if (realmp)
>> +               *realmp = NULL;
>>          if (ceph_snap(inode) != CEPH_NOSNAP)
>> -               return NULL;
>> +               return 0;
>>
>>   restart:
>>          realm = ceph_inode(inode)->i_snap_realm;
>> @@ -250,7 +251,7 @@ static struct ceph_snap_realm 
>> *get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>>                                  break;
>>                          ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, realm);
>>                          if (!retry)
>> -                               return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
>> +                               return -EAGAIN;
>>                          goto restart;
>>                  }
>>
>> @@ -259,8 +260,11 @@ static struct ceph_snap_realm 
>> *get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>>                  iput(in);
>>
>>                  next = realm->parent;
>> -               if (has_quota || !next)
>> -                      return realm;
>> +               if (has_quota || !next) {
>> +                       if (realmp)
>> +                               *realmp = realm;
>> +                      return 0;
>> +               }
>>
>>                  ceph_get_snap_realm(mdsc, next);
>>                  ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, realm);
>> @@ -269,14 +273,15 @@ static struct ceph_snap_realm 
>> *get_quota_realm(struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc,
>>          if (realm)
>>                  ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, realm);
>>
>> -       return NULL;
>> +       return 0;
>>   }
>>
>>   bool ceph_quota_is_same_realm(struct inode *old, struct inode *new)
>>   {
>>          struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc = ceph_sb_to_mdsc(old->i_sb);
>> -       struct ceph_snap_realm *old_realm, *new_realm;
>> +       struct ceph_snap_realm *old_realm = NULL, *new_realm = NULL;
>>          bool is_same;
>> +       int ret;
>>
>>   restart:
>>          /*
>> @@ -286,9 +291,9 @@ bool ceph_quota_is_same_realm(struct inode *old, 
>> struct inode *new)
>>           * dropped and we can then restart the whole operation.
>>           */
>>          down_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>> -       old_realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, old, QUOTA_GET_ANY, true);
>> -       new_realm = get_quota_realm(mdsc, new, QUOTA_GET_ANY, false);
>> -       if (PTR_ERR(new_realm) == -EAGAIN) {
>> +       get_quota_realm(mdsc, old, QUOTA_GET_ANY, &old_relam, true);
>> +       ret = get_quota_realm(mdsc, new, QUOTA_GET_ANY, &new_realm, 
>> false);
>> +       if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
>>                  up_read(&mdsc->snap_rwsem);
>>                  if (old_realm)
>>                          ceph_put_snap_realm(mdsc, old_realm);
>>
>>
>> Won't be this better ?
>>
>
> Yes, it looks better.
>
> Would you post a patch to address it? Or should I apply your changes and
> send a V2?
>
The above just a draft patch.

Please send a V2 for it and I will review and test it.

Thanks

- Xiubo


>> Thanks
>>
>> - Xiubo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> - Xiubo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Xiubo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                  Ilya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ