[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a18463df-a63b-4bdd-af85-bd8435cb23e7@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 19:51:59 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Sheng Yong <shengyong2021@...il.com>, xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
zbestahu@...il.com, jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com, lihongbo22@...wei.com,
dhavale@...gle.com
Cc: linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sheng Yong <shengyong1@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] erofs: avoid using multiple devices with different
type
Hi Yong,
On 2025/5/13 19:34, Sheng Yong wrote:
> From: Sheng Yong <shengyong1@...omi.com>
>
> For multiple devices, both primary and extra devices should be the
> same type. `erofs_init_device` has already guaranteed that if the
> primary is a file-backed device, extra devices should also be
> regular files.
>
> However, if the primary is a block device while the extra device
> is a file-backed device, `erofs_init_device` will get an ENOTBLK,
> which is not treated as an error in `erofs_fc_get_tree`, and that
> leads to an UAF:
>
> erofs_fc_get_tree
> get_tree_bdev_flags(erofs_fc_fill_super)
> erofs_read_superblock
> erofs_init_device // sbi->dif0 is not inited yet,
> // return -ENOTBLK
> deactivate_locked_super
> free(sbi)
> if (err is -ENOTBLK)
> sbi->dif0.file = filp_open() // sbi UAF
>
> So if -ENOTBLK is hitted in `erofs_init_device`, it means the
> primary device must be a block device, and the extra device
> is not a block device. The error can be converted to -EINVAL.
Yeah, nice catch.
As Hongbo said, it'd be better to add "Fixes:" tag
in the next version.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yong <shengyong1@...omi.com>
> ---
> fs/erofs/super.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c
> index 512877d7d855..16b5b1f66584 100644
> --- a/fs/erofs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
> @@ -165,8 +165,11 @@ static int erofs_init_device(struct erofs_buf *buf, struct super_block *sb,
> filp_open(dif->path, O_RDONLY | O_LARGEFILE, 0) :
> bdev_file_open_by_path(dif->path,
> BLK_OPEN_READ, sb->s_type, NULL);
> - if (IS_ERR(file))
> + if (IS_ERR(file)) {
> + if (PTR_ERR(file) == -ENOTBLK)
It's preferred to use:
if (file == ERR_PTR(-ENOTBLK))
return -EINVAL;
Otherwise it looks good to me.
Could you submit it as a seperate patch so I
could apply directly?
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists