[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024012246-passable-delegate-5528@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:50:00 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mikhail Ukhin <mish.uxin2012@...dex.ru>
Cc: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, stable@...r.kernel.org,
lvc-project@...uxtesting.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mikhail Ivanov <iwanov-23@...ru>,
Pavel Koshutin <koshutin.pavel@...dex.ru>,
Artem Sadovnikov <ancowi69@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10/5.15] jfs: add check if log->bdev is NULL in
lbmStartIO()
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 08:31:30PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 07:50:07PM +0300, Mikhail Ukhin wrote:
> > Fuzzing of 5.10 stable branch shows NULL pointer dereference happens in
> > lbmStartIO() on log->bdev pointer. The reason for bdev being NULL is the
> > JFS_NOINTEGRITY flag is set on mount of this fs. When this flag is enabled,
> > it results in the open_dummy_log function being called, which initializes a
> > new dummy_log, but does not assign a value to bdev.
> >
> > The error is fixed in 5.18 by commit
> > 07888c665b405b1cd3577ddebfeb74f4717a84c4.
> > Backport of this commit is too intrusive, so it is more reasonable to apply
> > a small patch to fix this issue.
> >
> > Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with syzkaller.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ukhin <mish.uxin2012@...dex.ru>
> > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <iwanov-23@...ru>
> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Koshutin <koshutin.pavel@...dex.ru>
> > Signed-off-by: Artem Sadovnikov <ancowi69@...il.com>
> > ---
> > fs/jfs/jfs_logmgr.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Who is using jfs in 5.10 and 5.15? Why not just mark the filesystem as
> BROKEN there instead? If you need to access your ancient filesystem
> image just use a newer kernel.
>
> For filesystems that are not used in older kernels, work like this feels
> odd, especially for something just like a NULL dereference which doesn't
> do much, right?
Now dropped from my review queue due to lack of response...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists