linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix out-of-bounds issue in ext4_xattr_set

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <ZvvLpxoIUdfC0xML@fedora>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:15:03 +0800
From: Qianqiang Liu <qianqiang.liu@....com>
To: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
	syzbot <syzbot+f792df426ff0f5ceb8d1@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix out-of-bounds issue in ext4_xattr_set_entry

Hi Ojaswin,

On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 03:11:44PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> 
> Hey Qianqiang,
> 
> Thanks for the patch. I'm still reviewing this codepath but I do have
> some questions around the patch. So I understand that xattrs are
> arranged in the following format:
> 
>  *   +------------------+
>  *   | header           |
>  *   | entry 1          | 
>  *   | entry 2          | 
>  *   | entry 3          | 
>  *   | four null bytes  | <--- last
>  *   | . . .            | 
>  *   | . . .            | <--- here
>  *   | . . .            | 
>  *   | value 1          | 
>  *   | value 3          | 
>  *   | value 2          | 
>  *   +------------------+
> 
> Now, in this error, my understanding is that we are actually ending up
> in a case where "here" ie the place where the new xattr entry will go is
> beyond the "last" ie the last slot for xattr entry and that is causing
> an underflow, something like the above diagram.
> 
> My only concern is that why were we not able to detect this in the logic
> near the start of the function where we explcity check if we have enough
> space? 
> 
> Perhaps we should be fixing the logic in that if {..} instead
> since the comment a few lines above your fix:
> 
> 	/* No failures allowed past this point. */
> 
> does suggest that we can't error out below that point, so ideally all
> the checks would have been done before that.
> 
> I'm still going through the issue, will update here if needed.
> 
> Regards,
> ojaswin
> 

Thank you for your suggestions.
I will investigate this issue further. If there are any updates, I will
let you know.

-- 
Best,
Qianqiang Liu