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: <20250902121134.486-1-anmuxixixi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  2 Sep 2025 20:11:34 +0800
From: YangWen <anmuxixixi@...il.com>
To: hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

Hi,

On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 23:13:42 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Hm, what is wrong with temporary inconsistent?
> 
> If it had the race with future modification, it can be temporary
> inconsistent. However, future modification will fix it by updating with
> latest blocks, right?
> 
> Or did you actually get the inconsistent state after clean unmount?

Thanks for your comment.

This is not only a temporary in-memory inconsistency.  KCSAN detected a
race where fat12_ent_put() updates two bytes of a 12-bit FAT entry while
fat_mirror_bhs() concurrently memcpy()’s the entire sector.  The mirror
FAT may therefore receive a torn entry.

Since fat_mirror_bhs() marks those buffers dirty, the corrupted mirror
content can be flushed to disk.  In our syzkaller testing, this already
resulted in runtime errors such as:

    FAT-fs (loop4): error, clusters badly computed (421 != 418)
    FAT-fs (loop4): error, fat_bmap_cluster: request beyond EOF (i_pos 2075)

These errors occurred even after a clean unmount, which suggests that the
inconsistent FAT entries were actually written to disk and not corrected
later by "future modification".

FAT16/32 do not suffer from this problem because their entries are
naturally aligned 16/32-bit accesses, which are atomic on supported
architectures.  FAT12 is special because of the 12-bit packing across
two bytes.

So I think it is necessary to protect memcpy() in fat_mirror_bhs() with
fat12_entry_lock to avoid copying a torn FAT12 entry.

Thanks.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ