| 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: <d714e0652f920cecebf5fdcf0023a440cbd1df4e.camel@ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 18:27:53 +0000
From: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>
To: "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"mehdi.benhadjkhelifa@...il.com" <mehdi.benhadjkhelifa@...il.com>
CC: "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "khalid@...nel.org" <khalid@...nel.org>,
"frank.li@...o.com" <frank.li@...o.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"slava@...eyko.com" <slava@...eyko.com>,
"david.hunter.linux@...il.com" <david.hunter.linux@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk"
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"skhan@...uxfoundation.org"
<skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
"glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de"
<glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
"syzbot+ad45f827c88778ff7df6@...kaller.appspotmail.com"
<syzbot+ad45f827c88778ff7df6@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] fs/hfs: fix s_fs_info leak on setup_bdev_super()
failure
On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 20:03 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote:
> On 1/19/26 6:48 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > On Sat, 2026-01-17 at 19:51 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote:
> > > On 12/1/25 8:24 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2025-11-29 at 13:48 +0100, Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa wrote:
> > > > > On 11/27/25 9:19 PM, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > <skipped>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as I can see, the situation is improving with the patches. I can say that
> > > > > > patches have been tested and I am ready to pick up the patches into HFS/HFS+
> > > > > > tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mehdi, should I expect the formal patches from you? Or should I take the patches
> > > > > > as it is?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I can send them from my part. Should I add signed-off-by tag at the end
> > > > > appended to them?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you are OK with the current commit message, then I can simply add your
> > > > signed-off-by tag on my side. If you would like to polish the commit message
> > > > somehow, then I can wait the patches from you. So, what is your decision?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I want to give an apologies for the delayed/none reply about the
> > > > > crash of xfstests on my part. I went back testing them 3 days earlier
> > > > > and they started showing different results again and then I have broken
> > > > > my finger....Which caused me to have much slower progress.I'm still
> > > > > working on getting the same crashes as I did before where I get them
> > > > > when running any test.Because I ran quick tests and they didn't crash.
> > > > > only with auto around the 631 test for desktop and around 642 on my
> > > > > laptop for both not patched and patched kernels.I'm going to update you
> > > > > on that matter when I can have predictable behavior and cause of the
> > > > > crash/call stack.But expect slow progress from my part here for the
> > > > > reason I mentionned before.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No problem. Take your time.
> > > >
> > > Continuing on this. I have run xfstests today on the base 6.18-rc7
> > > unmodified kernel ( I will do it again for latest release) and captured
> > > the crash.
> > > The following is the decoded crash report:
> > > [ 1572.093549] [T1127273] Oops: general protection fault, maybe for
> > > address 0xffffcaa2c1da364c: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
> > > [ 1572.093555] [T1127273] Tainted: [S]=CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, [O]=OOT_MODULE,
> > > [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE
> > > [ 1572.093556] [T1127273] Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
> > > B760 DS3H/B760 DS3H, BIOS F12 02/25/2025
> > > [ 1572.093557] [T1127273] RIP: 0010:memcpy (arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S:38)
> > > [ 1572.093560] [T1127273] Code: 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00
> > > 00 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 f3 0f 1e fa 66 90 48
> > > 89 f8 48 89 d1 <f3> a4 c3 cc cc cc cc 66 90 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00
> > > 00 00 90 90
> > > All code
> > > ========
> > > 0: 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 cs nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> > > 7: 00 00
> > > 9: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> > > e: 90 nop
> > > f: 90 nop
> > > 10: 90 nop
> > > 11: 90 nop
> > > 12: 90 nop
> > > 13: 90 nop
> > > 14: 90 nop
> > > 15: 90 nop
> > > 16: 90 nop
> > > 17: 90 nop
> > > 18: 90 nop
> > > 19: 90 nop
> > > 1a: 90 nop
> > > 1b: 90 nop
> > > 1c: 90 nop
> > > 1d: 90 nop
> > > 1e: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
> > > 22: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
> > > 24: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
> > > 27: 48 89 d1 mov %rdx,%rcx
> > > 2a:* f3 a4 rep movsb (%rsi),(%rdi) <-- trapping
> > > instruction
> > > 2c: c3 ret
> > > 2d: cc int3
> > > 2e: cc int3
> > > 2f: cc int3
> > > 30: cc int3
> > > 31: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
> > > 33: 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 data16 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> > > 3a: 00 00 00 00
> > > 3e: 90 nop
> > > 3f: 90 nop
> > >
> > > Code starting with the faulting instruction
> > > ===========================================
> > > 0: f3 a4 rep movsb (%rsi),(%rdi)
> > > 2: c3 ret
> > > 3: cc int3
> > > 4: cc int3
> > > 5: cc int3
> > > 6: cc int3
> > > 7: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
> > > 9: 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 data16 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> > > 10: 00 00 00 00
> > > 14: 90 nop
> > > 15: 90 nop
> > > [ 1572.093561] [T1127273] RSP: 0018:ffffcaa2c1da3610 EFLAGS: 00010206
> > > [ 1572.093563] [T1127273] RAX: ffffcaa2c1da364c RBX: 0000000000000004
> > > RCX: 0000000000000004
> > > [ 1572.093564] [T1127273] RDX: 0000000000000004 RSI: 0ddc8fa7cb9c9ff6
> > > RDI: ffffcaa2c1da364c
> > > [ 1572.093565] [T1127273] RBP: 0000000000000004 R08: 0000000000002000
> > > R09: ffff89e0966c8118
> > > [ 1572.093566] [T1127273] R10: 0000000000000009 R11: 000000000000000a
> > > R12: ffffcaa2c1da364c
> > > [ 1572.093566] [T1127273] R13: ffff89e085beee98 R14: 0000000000000004
> > > R15: ffff89e085beee40
> > > [ 1572.093567] [T1127273] FS: 00007f9b755ddc40(0000)
> > > GS:ffff89e8af90e000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > [ 1572.093568] [T1127273] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > [ 1572.093569] [T1127273] CR2: 00007f0cc5b95a10 CR3: 00000003448b9001
> > > CR4: 0000000000f72ef0
> > > [ 1572.093570] [T1127273] PKRU: 55555554
> > > [ 1572.093570] [T1127273] Call Trace:
> > > [ 1572.093572] [T1127273] <TASK>
> > > Server query failed: No such file or directory
> > > [ 1572.093574] [T1127273] hfsplus_bnode_read (fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:49
> > > fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:23) hfsplus
Probably, we are still trying to read out of allocated memory for b-tree node
despite the check_and_correct_requested_length() efforts to protect against
this:
void hfs_bnode_read(struct hfs_bnode *node, void *buf, u32 off, u32 len)
{
struct page **pagep;
u32 l;
if (!is_bnode_offset_valid(node, off))
return;
if (len == 0) {
pr_err("requested zero length: "
"NODE: id %u, type %#x, height %u, "
"node_size %u, offset %u, len %u\n",
node->this, node->type, node->height,
node->tree->node_size, off, len);
return;
}
len = check_and_correct_requested_length(node, off, len);
off += node->page_offset;
pagep = node->page + (off >> PAGE_SHIFT);
off &= ~PAGE_MASK;
l = min_t(u32, len, PAGE_SIZE - off);
memcpy_from_page(buf, *pagep, off, l);
while ((len -= l) != 0) {
buf += l;
l = min_t(u32, len, PAGE_SIZE);
memcpy_from_page(buf, *++pagep, 0, l);
}
}
Potentially, node_size and real allocated memory is not consistent with each
other:
static inline
u32 check_and_correct_requested_length(struct hfs_bnode *node, u32 off, u32 len)
{
unsigned int node_size;
if (!is_bnode_offset_valid(node, off))
return 0;
node_size = node->tree->node_size;
if ((off + len) > node_size) {
u32 new_len = node_size - off;
pr_err("requested length has been corrected: "
"NODE: id %u, type %#x, height %u, "
"node_size %u, offset %u, "
"requested_len %u, corrected_len %u\n",
node->this, node->type, node->height,
node->tree->node_size, off, len, new_len);
return new_len;
}
return len;
}
So, I assume that it makes sense to check the correctness of node_size value.
But, maybe, the reason is somewhere else. However, I remember this report [1]
for HFS. The issue could be the same for HFS+ too.
Thanks,
Slava.
[1] https://github.com/hfs-linux-kernel/hfs-linux-kernel/issues/241
> > > [ 1572.093580] [T1127273] ? __pfx_hfs_find_rec_by_key
> > > (fs/hfsplus/bfind.c:86) hfsplus
> > > [ 1572.093584] [T1127273] hfsplus_brec_lenoff (fs/hfsplus/brec.c:27) hfsplus
> > > [ 1572.093588] [T1127273] __hfsplus_brec_find (fs/hfsplus/bfind.c:118)
> > > hfsplus
> > > [ 1572.093592] [T1127273] hfsplus_brec_find (fs/hfsplus/bfind.c:191) hfsplus
> > > [ 1572.093596] [T1127273] ? __pfx_hfs_find_rec_by_key
> > > (fs/hfsplus/bfind.c:86) hfsplus
> > > [ 1572.093599] [T1127273] hfsplus_attr_exists
> > > (fs/hfsplus/attributes.c:190) hfsplus
> > > [ 1572.093603] [T1127273] __hfsplus_setxattr (fs/hfsplus/xattr.c:340
> > > (discriminator 1)) hfsplus
> > > [ 1572.093610] [T1127273] hfsplus_setxattr (fs/hfsplus/xattr.c:437) hfsplus
> > > [ 1572.093613] [T1127273] __vfs_setxattr (fs/xattr.c:200)
> > > [ 1572.093616] [T1127273] __vfs_setxattr_noperm (fs/xattr.c:236)
> > > [ 1572.093619] [T1127273] vfs_setxattr (./include/linux/fs.h:990
> > > fs/xattr.c:323)
> > > [ 1572.093621] [T1127273] filename_setxattr (fs/xattr.c:666)
> > > [ 1572.093623] [T1127273] path_setxattrat (fs/xattr.c:715)
> > > [ 1572.093626] [T1127273] __x64_sys_lsetxattr (fs/xattr.c:750
> > > (discriminator 2))
> > > [ 1572.093628] [T1127273] do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63
> > > (discriminator 1) arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 (discriminator 1))
> > > [ 1572.093630] [T1127273] ? do_syscall_64
> > > (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 (discriminator 1)
> > > arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 (discriminator 1))
> > > [ 1572.093631] [T1127273] ? __x64_sys_lsetxattr (fs/xattr.c:750
> > > (discriminator 2))
> > > [ 1572.093633] [T1127273] ? do_syscall_64
> > > (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 (discriminator 1)
> > > arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 (discriminator 1))
> > > [ 1572.093633] [T1127273] ? __irq_exit_rcu (kernel/softirq.c:688
> > > (discriminator 1) kernel/softirq.c:729 (discriminator 1))
> > > [ 1572.093636] [T1127273] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> > > (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:130)
> > > [ 1572.093637] [T1127273] RIP: 0033:0x7f9b7531697e
> > > [ 1572.093654] [T1127273] Code: 83 c4 18 48 89 d8 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e
> > > 41 5f 5d c3 0f 1f 00 31 db eb e7 0f 1f 40 00 f3 0f 1e fa 49 89 ca b8 bd
> > > 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 62 13 0f 00 f7 d8
> > > 64 89 01 48
> > > All code
> > > ========
> > > 0: 83 c4 18 add $0x18,%esp
> > > 3: 48 89 d8 mov %rbx,%rax
> > > 6: 5b pop %rbx
> > > 7: 41 5c pop %r12
> > > 9: 41 5d pop %r13
> > > b: 41 5e pop %r14
> > > d: 41 5f pop %r15
> > > f: 5d pop %rbp
> > > 10: c3 ret
> > > 11: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax)
> > > 14: 31 db xor %ebx,%ebx
> > > 16: eb e7 jmp 0xffffffffffffffff
> > > 18: 0f 1f 40 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
> > > 1c: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
> > > 20: 49 89 ca mov %rcx,%r10
> > > 23: b8 bd 00 00 00 mov $0xbd,%eax
> > > 28: 0f 05 syscall
> > > 2a:* 48 3d 01 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff001,%rax <--
> > > trapping instruction
> > > 30: 73 01 jae 0x33
> > > 32: c3 ret
> > > 33: 48 8b 0d 62 13 0f 00 mov 0xf1362(%rip),%rcx # 0xf139c
> > > 3a: f7 d8 neg %eax
> > > 3c: 64 89 01 mov %eax,%fs:(%rcx)
> > > 3f: 48 rex.W
> > >
> > > Code starting with the faulting instruction
> > > ===========================================
> > > 0: 48 3d 01 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff001,%rax
> > > 6: 73 01 jae 0x9
> > > 8: c3 ret
> > > 9: 48 8b 0d 62 13 0f 00 mov 0xf1362(%rip),%rcx # 0xf1372
> > > 10: f7 d8 neg %eax
> > > 12: 64 89 01 mov %eax,%fs:(%rcx)
> > > 15: 48 rex.W
> > > [ 1572.093655] [T1127273] RSP: 002b:00007ffc251dfbd8 EFLAGS: 00000246
> > > ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000bd
> > > [ 1572.093656] [T1127273] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000
> > > RCX: 00007f9b7531697e
> > > [ 1572.093657] [T1127273] RDX: 00005617e5af5990 RSI: 00007ffc251dfd70
> > > RDI: 00005617e5af9190
> > > [ 1572.093657] [T1127273] RBP: 00007ffc251dfd60 R08: 0000000000000000
> > > R09: 0000000000000000
> > > [ 1572.093658] [T1127273] R10: 00000000000002a1 R11: 0000000000000246
> > > R12: 00007ffc251dfd70
> > > [ 1572.093658] [T1127273] R13: 00005617e5af5990 R14: 00000000000002a1
> > > R15: 0000000000001ae7
> > > [ 1572.093660] [T1127273] </TASK>
> > >
> > >
> > > Should be noted that before the crash, dmesg shows that the generic test
> > > 642 is stuck repeatedly trying to "replace xattr" which is triggered in
> > > the __hfsplus_setxattr() function under fs/hfsplus/xattr line 354.
> > > relevant dmesg output:
> > > [ 1571.407168] [ T4294] run fstests generic/642 at 2026-01-17 14:49:36
> > > [ 1571.892677] [T1127270] hfsplus: cannot replace xattr
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > [ 1572.092869] [T1127271] hfsplus: cannot replace xattr
> > > [ 1572.093234] [T1127270] hfsplus: cannot replace xattr
> > >
> > >
> > > If more information relevant to the crash or more testing is needed I
> > > would do my best to help.I will also provide more crash info for the
> > > 6.18-rc7 patched kernel and 6.19-rc4 base and patched kernel soon.
> >
> > Could you please test/check the issue reproduction on current state of
> > origin/for-next branch of HFS/HFS+ tree [1]?
> >
> Yes, I will do it now and get back to you later tonight.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Also I wanted to check on the v3 patches current status. Do they need
> > > more revision or they were missed to be merged in?
> > > > >
> >
> > I've already applied your patchset on HFS/HFS+ tree [1]. You can see it in
> > origin/for-next branch.
> >
> Ah, I missed that. Thanks for the heads up!
> > Thanks,
> > Slava.
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vdubeyko/hfs.git
> Best Regards,
> Mehdi Ben Hadj Khelifa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists