[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6dbcc0a-71d8-472a-aa62-89d7ba586cbc@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 09:50:02 +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, dhavale@...gle.com,
lihongbo22@...wei.com
Cc: linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sheng Yong <shengyong1@...omi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] erofs: avoid using multiple devices with different
type
On 2025/5/15 09:48, 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.
>
> Fixes: fb176750266a ("erofs: add file-backed mount support")
> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yong <shengyong1@...omi.com>
Reviewed-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists