linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] cifs: Remove intermediate object of failed create reparse call

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240930172027.yt6qijriln4sv5hc@pali>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:20:27 +0200
From: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
To: Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.com>
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
	Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@...il.com>,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] cifs: Remove intermediate object of failed create
 reparse call

On Monday 30 September 2024 12:25:27 Paulo Alcantara wrote:
> Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > If CREATE was successful but SMB2_OP_SET_REPARSE failed then remove the
> > intermediate object created by CREATE. Otherwise empty object stay on the
> > server when reparse call failed.
> >
> > This ensures that if the creating of special files is unsupported by the
> > server then no empty file stay on the server as a result of unsupported
> > operation.
> >
> > Fixes: 102466f303ff ("smb: client: allow creating special files via reparse points")
> > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/smb/client/smb2inode.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/smb/client/smb2inode.c b/fs/smb/client/smb2inode.c
> > index 11a1c53c64e0..af42f44bdcf4 100644
> > --- a/fs/smb/client/smb2inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/smb/client/smb2inode.c
> > @@ -1205,6 +1205,8 @@ struct inode *smb2_get_reparse_inode(struct cifs_open_info_data *data,
> >  	struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
> >  	struct cifsFileInfo *cfile;
> >  	struct inode *new = NULL;
> > +	int out_buftype[2] = {};
> > +	struct kvec out_iov[2];
> >  	struct kvec in_iov[2];
> >  	int cmds[2];
> >  	int rc;
> > @@ -1228,7 +1230,7 @@ struct inode *smb2_get_reparse_inode(struct cifs_open_info_data *data,
> >  		cmds[1] = SMB2_OP_POSIX_QUERY_INFO;
> >  		cifs_get_writable_path(tcon, full_path, FIND_WR_ANY, &cfile);
> >  		rc = smb2_compound_op(xid, tcon, cifs_sb, full_path, &oparms,
> > -				      in_iov, cmds, 2, cfile, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > +				      in_iov, cmds, 2, cfile, out_iov, out_buftype, NULL);
> >  		if (!rc) {
> >  			rc = smb311_posix_get_inode_info(&new, full_path,
> >  							 data, sb, xid);
> > @@ -1237,12 +1239,27 @@ struct inode *smb2_get_reparse_inode(struct cifs_open_info_data *data,
> >  		cmds[1] = SMB2_OP_QUERY_INFO;
> >  		cifs_get_writable_path(tcon, full_path, FIND_WR_ANY, &cfile);
> >  		rc = smb2_compound_op(xid, tcon, cifs_sb, full_path, &oparms,
> > -				      in_iov, cmds, 2, cfile, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > +				      in_iov, cmds, 2, cfile, out_iov, out_buftype, NULL);
> >  		if (!rc) {
> >  			rc = cifs_get_inode_info(&new, full_path,
> >  						 data, sb, xid, NULL);
> >  		}
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	if (rc) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If CREATE was successful but SMB2_OP_SET_REPARSE failed then
> > +		 * remove the intermediate object created by CREATE. Otherwise
> > +		 * empty object stay on the server when reparse call failed.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (((struct smb2_hdr *)out_iov[0].iov_base)->Status == STATUS_SUCCESS &&
> > +		    ((struct smb2_hdr *)out_iov[1].iov_base)->Status != STATUS_SUCCESS)
> > +			smb2_unlink(xid, tcon, full_path, cifs_sb, NULL);
> > +	}
> 
> You should handle the case where ->iov_base is NULL or out_buftype ==
> CIFS_NO_BUFFER, otherwise you'll end up with a NULL ptr deref.

Ok, thanks for info! I will send v3 with those checks.

Anyway, what does it mean if iov_base stay NULL or out_buftype is
CIFS_NO_BUFFER? Does it mean that the server has not returned reply for
that command?

I guess that it should be treated as unsuccessful result.