linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] hfs: update sanity check of the root record

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: <0dc4e0a9888b7b772e8093fc40c2d44a22f49daf.camel@ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 22:14:12 +0000
From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>
To: "glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de" <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        "frank.li@...o.com" <frank.li@...o.com>,
        "penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp"
	<penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        "slava@...eyko.com"
	<slava@...eyko.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re:  [PATCH v5] hfs: update sanity check of the root record

On Fri, 2025-09-12 at 23:59 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> syzbot is reporting that BUG() in hfs_write_inode() fires upon unmount
> operation when the inode number of the record retrieved as a result of
> hfs_cat_find_brec(HFS_ROOT_CNID) is not HFS_ROOT_CNID, for
> commit b905bafdea21 ("hfs: Sanity check the root record") checked
> the record size and the record type but did not check the inode number.
> 
> Viacheslav Dubeyko considers that the fix should be in hfs_read_inode()
> but Viacheslav has no time for proposing the fix [1]. Also, we can't
> guarantee that the inode number of the record retrieved as a result of
> hfs_cat_find_brec(HFS_ROOT_CNID) is HFS_ROOT_CNID if we validate only in
> hfs_read_inode(). Therefore, while what Viacheslav would propose might
> partially overwrap with my proposal, let's fix an 1000+ days old bug by
> adding a sanity check in hfs_fill_super().
> 

I cannot accept any fix with such comment. The commit message should explain the
issue and fix nature.

We are not in a hurry. We should fix the reason of the issue even if it is
"1000+ days old bug".

Thanks,
Slava.

> Reported-by: syzbot+97e301b4b82ae803d21b@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=97e301b4b82ae803d21b  
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/a3d1464ee40df7f072ea1c19e1ccf533e34554ca.camel@ibm.com   [1]
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
>  fs/hfs/super.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/hfs/super.c b/fs/hfs/super.c
> index 388a318297ec..ae6dbc4bb813 100644
> --- a/fs/hfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/hfs/super.c
> @@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ static int hfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc)
>  			goto bail_hfs_find;
>  		}
>  		hfs_bnode_read(fd.bnode, &rec, fd.entryoffset, fd.entrylength);
> -		if (rec.type != HFS_CDR_DIR)
> +		if (rec.type != HFS_CDR_DIR || rec.dir.DirID != cpu_to_be32(HFS_ROOT_CNID))
>  			res = -EIO;
>  	}
>  	if (res)