netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 05/21] ubifs: Pass worst-case buffer size to compression routines

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: <20230718223813.GC1005@sol.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:38:13 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Haren Myneni <haren@...ibm.com>,
	Nick Terrell <terrelln@...com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@...el.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	qat-linux@...el.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/21] ubifs: Pass worst-case buffer size to
 compression routines

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 02:58:31PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Currently, the ubifs code allocates a worst case buffer size to
> recompress a data node, but does not pass the size of that buffer to the
> compression code. This means that the compression code will never use
> the additional space, and might fail spuriously due to lack of space.
> 
> So let's multiply out_len by WORST_COMPR_FACTOR after allocating the
> buffer. Doing so is guaranteed not to overflow, given that the preceding
> kmalloc_array() call would have failed otherwise.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> ---
>  fs/ubifs/journal.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/journal.c b/fs/ubifs/journal.c
> index dc52ac0f4a345f30..4e5961878f336033 100644
> --- a/fs/ubifs/journal.c
> +++ b/fs/ubifs/journal.c
> @@ -1493,6 +1493,8 @@ static int truncate_data_node(const struct ubifs_info *c, const struct inode *in
>  	if (!buf)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	out_len *= WORST_COMPR_FACTOR;
> +
>  	dlen = le32_to_cpu(dn->ch.len) - UBIFS_DATA_NODE_SZ;
>  	data_size = dn_size - UBIFS_DATA_NODE_SZ;
>  	compr_type = le16_to_cpu(dn->compr_type);

This looks like another case where data that would be expanded by compression
should just be stored uncompressed instead.

In fact, it seems that UBIFS does that already.  ubifs_compress() has this:

        /*
         * If the data compressed only slightly, it is better to leave it
         * uncompressed to improve read speed.
         */
        if (in_len - *out_len < UBIFS_MIN_COMPRESS_DIFF)
                goto no_compr;

So it's unclear why the WORST_COMPR_FACTOR thing is needed at all.

- Eric