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: <18e96492-af22-4bfe-8005-5114a4d5d99e@kylinos.cn>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2024 09:06:11 +0800
From: Zhao Mengmeng <zhaomengmeng@...inos.cn>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, sashal@...nel.org,
 Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>,
 Daniel Reichelt <debian@...htgeist.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 1089698@...s.debian.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [regression] linux: Loop-mounted UDF ISOs no longer readable

On 2024/12/24 17:59, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 05:46:59PM +0800, Zhao Mengmeng wrote:
>> On 2024/12/23 10:48, Zhao Mengmeng wrote:
>>> On 2024/12/21 03:49, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>>>> Hi Jan, hi Zhao,
>>>>
>>>> In Debian we got he following report, full quoted below from Daniel
>>>> Reichelt, dass after updating to 6.1.115 (and later, confirmed up to
>>>> 6.1.119), loop-mounted UDF ISOs are no longer readable:
>>>
>>> Sorry to hear that...
>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> in 6.1.112-1 I could loop-mount Windows Setup ISOs (downloaded from M$; hashes
>>>>> are fine; 10/11, DE/EN don't seem to make any difference) and access their
>>>>> content perfectly fine, i.e. share the /sources/ sub-directory via samba for
>>>>> netinstall scenarios.
>>>>>
>>>>> Starting with 6.1.115-1, the ISOs can be mounted, the root-dir is accessible
>>>>> and `stat $mntpt/sources` gives output as well. However `ls $mntpt/sources`
>>>>> hangs and the kernel log is spammed with entries like
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------8<-------------------------
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.616728+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.024828] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after position 12272 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.629970+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.038041] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312) has too big (2088) entry at pos 12272
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.641623+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.049714] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after position 12272 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.654841+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.062928] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312) has too big (2088) entry at pos 12272
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.666495+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.074615] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after position 12272 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.679747+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.087833] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312) has too big (2088) entry at pos 12272
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.691394+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.099510] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after position 12272 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.704646+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.112727] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312) has too big (2088) entry at pos 12272
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.716283+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.124400] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after position 12272 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.729539+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.137618] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312) has too big (2088) entry at pos 12272
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.741185+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.149279] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after position 12272 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.754422+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.162494] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312) has too big (2088) entry at pos 12272
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.766071+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.174159] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_fiiter_advance_blk: extent after position 12272 not allocated in directory (ino 312)
>>>>> 2024-12-11T14:53:19.779289+01:00 srv kernel: [182394.187375] UDF-fs: error (device loop3): udf_verify_fi: directory (ino 312) has too big (2088) entry at pos 12272
>>>>> ---------------8<-------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.1.119-1 shows the same behaviour.
>>>>> Let me know if you need additional info.
>>>>
>>>> We have not a full bisect, but Daniel confirmed already in
>>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1089698#22 some
>>>> observations:
>>>>
>>>>> OK:
>>>>>   6.1.112-1
>>>>> BAD:
>>>>>   6.1.115-1
>>>>>   6.1.119-1
>>>>> OK again:
>>>>>   6.3.1-1~exp1
>>>>>   current trixie
>>>>>   current sid
>>>>
>>>> (current trixie is 6.11.10 based kernel, current sid is based on
>>>> 6.12.5 kernel).
>>>>
>>>> Dies this ring some bell to you?
>>>
>>> I'll take a look at it. Will post it here if anything new founded.
>>>
>>>> #regzbot introduced: v6.1.112..v6.1.115
>>>> #regzbot monitor: https://bugs.debian.org/1089698
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Salvatore
>>>
>> --------------------
>> Update on 2024.12.24:
>>
>> Hi Jan, Sasha, after some testing and code digging, I found that v6.1 LTS may need 
>> this patch to solve Daniel's issue:
>>
>> commit 1ea1cd11c72d1405a6b98440a9d5ea82dfa07166
>> Author: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>> Date:   Wed Jan 25 11:43:03 2023 +0100
>>
>>     udf: Fix directory iteration for longer tail extents
>>     
>>     When directory's last extent has more that one block and its length is
>>     not multiple of a block side, the code wrongly decided to move to the
>>     next extent instead of processing the last partial block. This led to
>>     directory corruption. Fix the rounding issue.
>>     
>>     Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> 
> It's already queued up for the next 6.1.y release in a few days, so if
> you could test the -rc that is out for review right now, that would be
> great!

Glad to test it, will do.

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ