netdev - Re: [PATCH V5] ext4: check hash version and filesystem casefolded consistent

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: <20240605011644.1878-1-lizhi.xu@windriver.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 09:16:44 +0800
From: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@...driver.com>
To: <krisman@...e.de>
CC: <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <coreteam@...filter.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <ebiggers@...nel.org>, <fw@...len.de>,
        <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, <kadlec@...filter.org>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <lizhi.xu@...driver.com>,
        <lkp@...el.com>, <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, <oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <pablo@...filter.org>,
        <syzbot+340581ba9dceb7e06fb3@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>, <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] ext4: check hash version and filesystem casefolded consistent

On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 15:06:32 -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> >> > When mounting the ext4 filesystem, if the hash version and casefolded are not
> >> > consistent, exit the mounting.
> >> >
> >> > Reported-by: syzbot+340581ba9dceb7e06fb3@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> >> > Signed-off-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@...driver.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  fs/ext4/super.c | 5 +++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> >> > index c682fb927b64..0ad326504c50 100644
> >> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> >> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> >> > @@ -5262,6 +5262,11 @@ static int __ext4_fill_super(struct fs_context *fc, struct super_block *sb)
> >> >  		goto failed_mount;
> >> >  
> >> >  	ext4_hash_info_init(sb);
> >> > +	if (es->s_def_hash_version == DX_HASH_SIPHASH && 
> >> > +	    !ext4_has_feature_casefold(sb)) {
> >> 
> >> Can we ever have DX_HASH_SIPHASH set up in the super block?  I thought
> >> it was used solely for directories where ext4_hash_in_dirent(inode) is
> >> true.
> > The value of s'def_hash_version is obtained by reading the super block from the
> > buffer cache of the block device in ext4_load_super().
> 
> Yes, I know.  My point is whether this check should just be:
Based on the existing information, it cannot be confirmed that it is incorrect
to separately determine the value of s_def_hash_version as DX_HASH_SIPHASH.
Additionally, I have come up with a better solution, and I will issue the next
fixed version in a while.
> 
> if (es->s_def_hash_version == DX_HASH_SIPHASH)
> 	goto failed_mount;
> 
> Since, IIUC, DX_HASH_SIPHASH is done per-directory and not written to
> the sb.
> 
> >> If this is only for the case of a superblock corruption, perhaps we
> >> should always reject the mount, whether casefold is enabled or not?
> > Based on the existing information, it cannot be confirmed whether the superblock
> > is corrupt, but one thing is clear: if the default hash version of the superblock
> > is set to DX_HASH_SIPHASH, but the casefold feature is not set at the same time,
> > it is definitely an error.

Lizhi