| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d4b7c03c-6554-4407-b823-aecfcdf7dc3f@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 16:12:13 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: "Nikola Z. Ivanov" <zlatistiv@...il.com>
Cc: chao@...nel.org, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, david.hunter.linux@...il.com,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, khalid@...nel.org,
syzbot+c07d47c7bc68f47b9083@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: Perform sanity check before unlinking directory
inode
On 10/24/25 03:15, Nikola Z. Ivanov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 03:55:40PM +0300, Nikola Z. Ivanov wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 02:41:53PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 10/14/25 20:17, Nikola Z. Ivanov wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 08:53:04PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/25 05:19, Nikola Z. Ivanov wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 10:54:40AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/3/2025 9:47 PM, Nikola Z. Ivanov wrote:
>>>>>>>> Current i_nlink corruption check does not take into account
>>>>>>>> directory inodes which have one additional i_nlink for their "." entry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add additional check and a common corruption path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+c07d47c7bc68f47b9083@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>>>>>>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c07d47c7bc68f47b9083
>>>>>>>> Fixes: 81edb983b3f5 ("f2fs: add check for deleted inode")
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikola Z. Ivanov <zlatistiv@...il.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/namei.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/namei.c b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
>>>>>>>> index b882771e4699..68b33e8089b0 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/namei.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -502,12 +502,14 @@ static struct dentry *f2fs_lookup(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>>>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> - if (inode->i_nlink == 0) {
>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(inode->i_nlink == 0)) {
>>>>>>>> f2fs_warn(F2FS_I_SB(inode), "%s: inode (ino=%lx) has zero i_nlink",
>>>>>>>> __func__, inode->i_ino);
>>>>>>>> - err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
>>>>>>>> - set_sbi_flag(F2FS_I_SB(inode), SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>>>>>>> - goto out_iput;
>>>>>>>> + goto corrupted;
>>>>>>>> + } else if (unlikely(S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) && inode->i_nlink == 1)) {
>>>>>>>> + f2fs_warn(F2FS_I_SB(inode), "%s: directory inode (ino=%lx) has a single i_nlink",
>>>>>>>> + __func__, inode->i_ino);
>>>>>>>> + goto corrupted;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we detect such corruption in sanity_check_inode() as well? So that if
>>>>>>> f2fs internal flow calls f2fs_iget() on corrupted inode, we can set SBI_NEED_FSCK
>>>>>>> flag and then triggering fsck repairment later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> if (IS_ENCRYPTED(dir) &&
>>>>>>>> @@ -533,6 +535,9 @@ static struct dentry *f2fs_lookup(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>>>>>>>> trace_f2fs_lookup_end(dir, !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(new) ? new : dentry,
>>>>>>>> ino, IS_ERR(new) ? PTR_ERR(new) : err);
>>>>>>>> return new;
>>>>>>>> +corrupted:
>>>>>>>> + err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
>>>>>>>> + set_sbi_flag(F2FS_I_SB(inode), SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>>>>>>> out_iput:
>>>>>>>> iput(inode);
>>>>>>>> out:
>>>>>>>> @@ -572,10 +577,11 @@ static int f2fs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(inode->i_nlink == 0)) {
>>>>>>>> f2fs_warn(F2FS_I_SB(inode), "%s: inode (ino=%lx) has zero i_nlink",
>>>>>>>> __func__, inode->i_ino);
>>>>>>>> - err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
>>>>>>>> - set_sbi_flag(F2FS_I_SB(inode), SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>>>>>>> - f2fs_folio_put(folio, false);
>>>>>>>> - goto fail;
>>>>>>>> + goto corrupted;
>>>>>>>> + } else if (unlikely(S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) && inode->i_nlink == 1)) {
>>>>>>>> + f2fs_warn(F2FS_I_SB(inode), "%s: directory inode (ino=%lx) has a single i_nlink",
>>>>>>>> + __func__, inode->i_ino);
>>>>>>>> + goto corrupted;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> f2fs_balance_fs(sbi, true);
>>>>>>>> @@ -601,6 +607,12 @@ static int f2fs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
>>>>>>>> if (IS_DIRSYNC(dir))
>>>>>>>> f2fs_sync_fs(sbi->sb, 1);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + goto fail;
>>>>>>>> +corrupted:
>>>>>>>> + err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
>>>>>>>> + set_sbi_flag(F2FS_I_SB(inode), SBI_NEED_FSCK);
>>>>>>>> + f2fs_folio_put(folio, false);
>>>>>>>> fail:
>>>>>>>> trace_f2fs_unlink_exit(inode, err);
>>>>>>>> return err;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chao,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for the suggestion.
>>>>>> I will add this to sanity_check_inode and remove it
>>>>>> from f2fs_lookup as it becomes redundant since f2fs_lookup
>>>>>> obtains the inode through f2fs_iget. For f2fs_unlink I will
>>>>>> move the i_nlink == 1 check to f2fs_rmdir.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Nikola,
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant we can move the i_nlink == 1 check from both f2fs_lookup() and
>>>>> f2fs_unlink() to sanity_check_inode(), because before we create in-memory
>>>>> inode, we will always call sanity_check_inode().
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know if you have other concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issue here is that sanity_check_inode will be called only when
>>>> we initially read the inode off disk, not when it's already in the cache
>>>>
>>>> The syzkaller repro does something like this:
>>>> Creates a directory structure /dir1/dir2 where dir1 has
>>>> i_nlink == 2, which is one less than it should. It then does
>>>> rmdir(/dir1/dir2) followed by rmdir(/dir1) which leads to the warning.
>>>
>>> Oh, I missed this case.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In such case what would you say should happen, should the second rmdir
>>>> fail and report the corruption, or do we close our eyes and just drop
>>>> i_nlink to 0 and possibly log a message that something isn't quite right?
>>>
>>> I agreed that we should keep i_nlink == 1 check in f2fs_unlink().
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>
>> Hi Chao,
>>
>> Just to make sure we're on the same page, do you mean to keep the check
>> in f2fs_unlink as well as sanity_check_inode, or only do it in f2fs_unlink?
>>
>
> Hello,
>
> Kindly sending a reminder here, could you please
> provide input when you have the chance?
Hi Nikola,
Sorry for the delay, I missed to reply.
I meant that we can add sanity check (i_nlink == 1) for directory in:
- f2fs_unlink(), so that, we can detect runtime i_nlink inconsistency.
- sanity_check_inode(), then, we can detect on-disk i_nlink inconsistency.
Thanks,
>
> Thank you!
>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will send v2 as soon as I do some more testing.
>>>>>
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists