[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <085b27fd2b364a3c8c3a9ca77363e246@omp.ru>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:05:32 +0000
From: Roman Smirnov <r.smirnov@....ru>
To: "jaegeuk@...nel.org" <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, "chao@...nel.org"
<chao@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>, "Karina
Yankevich" <k.yankevich@....ru>, "lvc-project@...uxtesting.org"
<lvc-project@...uxtesting.org>
Subject: [bug report] fs: f2fs: integer overflow in
f2fs_truncate_inode_blocks()
Hello.
There is a possible bug in f2fs_truncate_inode_blocks():
if (err < 0 && err != -ENOENT)
goto fail;
...
offset[1] = 0;
offset[0]++;
nofs += err;
If err = -ENOENT then nofs will sum with an error code,
which is strange behaviour. Also if nofs < ENOENT this will
cause an overflow. err will be equal to -ENOENT with the
following call stack:
truncate_nodes()
f2fs_get_node_page()
__get_node_page()
read_node_page()
It looks like ENOENT processing is missing here. What can you
say about it? How can it be fixed?
Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the
Svace static analysis tool.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists