From patchwork Fri Aug 31 14:04:55 2018 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Joseph Salisbury X-Patchwork-Id: 964464 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.94.19; helo=huckleberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=canonical.com Received: from huckleberry.canonical.com (huckleberry.canonical.com [91.189.94.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4221Mk5mHKz9s1x; Sat, 1 Sep 2018 00:05:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=huckleberry.canonical.com) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fvk2l-0000lE-OW; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:04:59 +0000 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]) by huckleberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fvk2i-0000kU-Tp for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:04:56 +0000 Received: from 1.general.jsalisbury.us.vpn ([10.172.67.212] helo=salisbury) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1fvk2i-0003Uu-Gq for kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:04:56 +0000 Received: by salisbury (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 80A967E04C2; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:04:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Joseph Salisbury To: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: [SRU][Trusty][PATCH 1/1] ext4: fix bitmap position validation Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:04:55 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: References: In-Reply-To: References: X-BeenThere: kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Kernel team discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Errors-To: kernel-team-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com Sender: "kernel-team" From: Lukas Czerner BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1789131 Currently in ext4_valid_block_bitmap() we expect the bitmap to be positioned anywhere between 0 and s_blocksize clusters, but that's wrong because the bitmap can be placed anywhere in the block group. This causes false positives when validating bitmaps on perfectly valid file system layouts. Fix it by checking whether the bitmap is within the group boundary. The problem can be reproduced using the following mkfs -t ext3 -E stride=256 /dev/vdb1 mount /dev/vdb1 /mnt/test cd /mnt/test wget https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.16.3.tar.xz tar xf linux-4.16.3.tar.xz This will result in the warnings in the logs EXT4-fs error (device vdb1): ext4_validate_block_bitmap:399: comm tar: bg 84: block 2774529: invalid block bitmap [ Changed slightly for clarity and to not drop a overflow test -- TYT ] Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o Reported-by: Ilya Dryomov Fixes: 7dac4a1726a9 ("ext4: add validity checks for bitmap block numbers") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org (cherry picked from commit 22be37acce25d66ecf6403fc8f44df9c5ded2372) Signed-off-by: Joseph Salisbury Reviewed-by: Tyler Hicks Acked-by: Stefan Bader Acked-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza --- fs/ext4/balloc.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ext4/balloc.c b/fs/ext4/balloc.c index c19e367..7f0300f 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/balloc.c +++ b/fs/ext4/balloc.c @@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bitmap(struct super_block *sb, struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb); ext4_grpblk_t offset; ext4_grpblk_t next_zero_bit; + ext4_grpblk_t max_bit = EXT4_CLUSTERS_PER_GROUP(sb); ext4_fsblk_t blk; ext4_fsblk_t group_first_block; @@ -328,7 +329,7 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bitmap(struct super_block *sb, /* check whether block bitmap block number is set */ blk = ext4_block_bitmap(sb, desc); offset = blk - group_first_block; - if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= sb->s_blocksize || + if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= max_bit || !ext4_test_bit(EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset), bh->b_data)) /* bad block bitmap */ return blk; @@ -336,7 +337,7 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bitmap(struct super_block *sb, /* check whether the inode bitmap block number is set */ blk = ext4_inode_bitmap(sb, desc); offset = blk - group_first_block; - if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= sb->s_blocksize || + if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= max_bit || !ext4_test_bit(EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset), bh->b_data)) /* bad block bitmap */ return blk; @@ -344,8 +345,8 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bitmap(struct super_block *sb, /* check whether the inode table block number is set */ blk = ext4_inode_table(sb, desc); offset = blk - group_first_block; - if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= sb->s_blocksize || - EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset + sbi->s_itb_per_group) >= sb->s_blocksize) + if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= max_bit || + EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset + sbi->s_itb_per_group) >= max_bit) return blk; next_zero_bit = ext4_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_itb_per_group),