Re: [PATCH 1/1] nilfs2: fix potential memory overrun on inode
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:00:55 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:13:28 +0900 (JST) Ryusuke Konishi
> wrote:
>
>> I've got a warning from 0day kernel testing backend:
>>
>> fs/nilfs2/btree.c: In function 'nilfs_btree_root_broken':
>> >> fs/nilfs2/btree.c:394:3: warning: format '%lu' expects argument of type
>> >> 'long unsigned int', but argument 2 has type 'ino_t' [-Wformat=]
>>pr_crit("NILFS: bad btree root (inode number=%lu): level = %d,
>> flags = 0x%x, nchildren = %d\n",
>>^
>>
>> This is output for s390 arch since ino_t doesn't mean "unsigned long"
>> in s390.
>
> alpha uses uint for ino_t as well.
>
> It seems a bit pointless - neither arch uses ino_t in ./arch/ code. I
> suspect both could switch to ulong, which would make the world a
> slightly better place.
I entirely agree.
Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/1] nilfs2: fix potential memory overrun on inode
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 10:13:28 +0900 (JST) Ryusuke Konishi
wrote:
> I've got a warning from 0day kernel testing backend:
>
> fs/nilfs2/btree.c: In function 'nilfs_btree_root_broken':
> >> fs/nilfs2/btree.c:394:3: warning: format '%lu' expects argument of type
> >> 'long unsigned int', but argument 2 has type 'ino_t' [-Wformat=]
>pr_crit("NILFS: bad btree root (inode number=%lu): level = %d,
> flags = 0x%x, nchildren = %d\n",
>^
>
> This is output for s390 arch since ino_t doesn't mean "unsigned long"
> in s390.
alpha uses uint for ino_t as well.
It seems a bit pointless - neither arch uses ino_t in ./arch/ code. I
suspect both could switch to ulong, which would make the world a
slightly better place.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/1] nilfs2: fix potential memory overrun on inode
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:22:08 +0900 (JST), Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:58:42 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:46:35 +0900 Ryusuke Konishi
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Each inode of nilfs2 stores a root node of a b-tree, and it turned out
>>> to have a memory overrun issue:
>>>
>>> Each b-tree node of nilfs2 stores a set of key-value pairs and the
>>> number of them (in "bn_nchildren" member of nilfs_btree_node struct),
>>> as well as a few other "bn_*" members.
>>>
>>> Since the value of "bn_nchildren" is used for operations on the
>>> key-values within the b-tree node, it can cause memory access overrun
>>> if a large number is incorrectly set to "bn_nchildren".
>>>
>>> For instance, nilfs_btree_node_lookup() function determines the range
>>> of binary search with it, and too large "bn_nchildren" leads
>>> nilfs_btree_node_get_key() in that function to overrun.
>>>
>>> As for intermediate b-tree nodes, this is prevented by a sanity check
>>> performed when each node is read from a drive, however, no sanity
>>> check has been done for root nodes stored in inodes.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the issue by adding missing sanity check against
>>> b-tree root nodes so that it's called when on-memory inodes are read
>>> from ifile, inode metadata file.
>>
>> How would one trigger this overrun? Mount an fs with a deliberately
>> corrupted/inconsistent fs image?
>
> Yes, this can be triggered by mounting an fs with a corrupted image
> deliberately or by chance.
>
>> Memory overrun sounds nasty so I'm thinking we add cc:stable to this
>> one. OK?
>
> Agreed.
Could you apply the following amendment ?
I've got a warning from 0day kernel testing backend:
fs/nilfs2/btree.c: In function 'nilfs_btree_root_broken':
>> fs/nilfs2/btree.c:394:3: warning: format '%lu' expects argument of type
>> 'long unsigned int', but argument 2 has type 'ino_t' [-Wformat=]
pr_crit("NILFS: bad btree root (inode number=%lu): level = %d,
flags = 0x%x, nchildren = %d\n",
^
This is output for s390 arch since ino_t doesn't mean "unsigned long"
in s390.
Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi
--
diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/btree.c b/fs/nilfs2/btree.c
index c645d7c..ecdbae1 100644
--- a/fs/nilfs2/btree.c
+++ b/fs/nilfs2/btree.c
@@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ static int nilfs_btree_node_broken(const struct
nilfs_btree_node *node,
* Return Value: If node is broken, 1 is returned. Otherwise, 0 is returned.
*/
static int nilfs_btree_root_broken(const struct nilfs_btree_node *node,
- ino_t ino)
+ unsigned long ino)
{
int level, flags, nchildren;
int ret = 0;
--
1.8.3.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/1] nilfs2: fix potential memory overrun on inode
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:58:42 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:46:35 +0900 Ryusuke Konishi > wrote: > >> Each inode of nilfs2 stores a root node of a b-tree, and it turned out >> to have a memory overrun issue: >> >> Each b-tree node of nilfs2 stores a set of key-value pairs and the >> number of them (in "bn_nchildren" member of nilfs_btree_node struct), >> as well as a few other "bn_*" members. >> >> Since the value of "bn_nchildren" is used for operations on the >> key-values within the b-tree node, it can cause memory access overrun >> if a large number is incorrectly set to "bn_nchildren". >> >> For instance, nilfs_btree_node_lookup() function determines the range >> of binary search with it, and too large "bn_nchildren" leads >> nilfs_btree_node_get_key() in that function to overrun. >> >> As for intermediate b-tree nodes, this is prevented by a sanity check >> performed when each node is read from a drive, however, no sanity >> check has been done for root nodes stored in inodes. >> >> This patch fixes the issue by adding missing sanity check against >> b-tree root nodes so that it's called when on-memory inodes are read >> from ifile, inode metadata file. > > How would one trigger this overrun? Mount an fs with a deliberately > corrupted/inconsistent fs image? Yes, this can be triggered by mounting an fs with a corrupted image deliberately or by chance. > Memory overrun sounds nasty so I'm thinking we add cc:stable to this > one. OK? Agreed. Ryusuke Konishi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/1] nilfs2: fix potential memory overrun on inode
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:46:35 +0900 Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > Each inode of nilfs2 stores a root node of a b-tree, and it turned out > to have a memory overrun issue: > > Each b-tree node of nilfs2 stores a set of key-value pairs and the > number of them (in "bn_nchildren" member of nilfs_btree_node struct), > as well as a few other "bn_*" members. > > Since the value of "bn_nchildren" is used for operations on the > key-values within the b-tree node, it can cause memory access overrun > if a large number is incorrectly set to "bn_nchildren". > > For instance, nilfs_btree_node_lookup() function determines the range > of binary search with it, and too large "bn_nchildren" leads > nilfs_btree_node_get_key() in that function to overrun. > > As for intermediate b-tree nodes, this is prevented by a sanity check > performed when each node is read from a drive, however, no sanity > check has been done for root nodes stored in inodes. > > This patch fixes the issue by adding missing sanity check against > b-tree root nodes so that it's called when on-memory inodes are read > from ifile, inode metadata file. How would one trigger this overrun? Mount an fs with a deliberately corrupted/inconsistent fs image? Memory overrun sounds nasty so I'm thinking we add cc:stable to this one. OK? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH 1/1] nilfs2: fix potential memory overrun on inode
Each inode of nilfs2 stores a root node of a b-tree, and it turned out
to have a memory overrun issue:
Each b-tree node of nilfs2 stores a set of key-value pairs and the
number of them (in "bn_nchildren" member of nilfs_btree_node struct),
as well as a few other "bn_*" members.
Since the value of "bn_nchildren" is used for operations on the
key-values within the b-tree node, it can cause memory access overrun
if a large number is incorrectly set to "bn_nchildren".
For instance, nilfs_btree_node_lookup() function determines the range
of binary search with it, and too large "bn_nchildren" leads
nilfs_btree_node_get_key() in that function to overrun.
As for intermediate b-tree nodes, this is prevented by a sanity check
performed when each node is read from a drive, however, no sanity
check has been done for root nodes stored in inodes.
This patch fixes the issue by adding missing sanity check against
b-tree root nodes so that it's called when on-memory inodes are read
from ifile, inode metadata file.
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi
---
fs/nilfs2/btree.c | 47 ---
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/btree.c b/fs/nilfs2/btree.c
index b2e3ff3..c645d7c 100644
--- a/fs/nilfs2/btree.c
+++ b/fs/nilfs2/btree.c
@@ -31,6 +31,8 @@
#include "alloc.h"
#include "dat.h"
+static void __nilfs_btree_init(struct nilfs_bmap *bmap);
+
static struct nilfs_btree_path *nilfs_btree_alloc_path(void)
{
struct nilfs_btree_path *path;
@@ -368,6 +370,34 @@ static int nilfs_btree_node_broken(const struct
nilfs_btree_node *node,
return ret;
}
+/**
+ * nilfs_btree_root_broken - verify consistency of btree root node
+ * @node: btree root node to be examined
+ * @ino: inode number
+ *
+ * Return Value: If node is broken, 1 is returned. Otherwise, 0 is returned.
+ */
+static int nilfs_btree_root_broken(const struct nilfs_btree_node *node,
+ ino_t ino)
+{
+ int level, flags, nchildren;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ level = nilfs_btree_node_get_level(node);
+ flags = nilfs_btree_node_get_flags(node);
+ nchildren = nilfs_btree_node_get_nchildren(node);
+
+ if (unlikely(level < NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_NODE_MIN ||
+level > NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX ||
+nchildren < 0 ||
+nchildren > NILFS_BTREE_ROOT_NCHILDREN_MAX)) {
+ pr_crit("NILFS: bad btree root (inode number=%lu): level = %d,
flags = 0x%x, nchildren = %d\n",
+ ino, level, flags, nchildren);
+ ret = 1;
+ }
+ return ret;
+}
+
int nilfs_btree_broken_node_block(struct buffer_head *bh)
{
int ret;
@@ -1713,7 +1743,7 @@ nilfs_btree_commit_convert_and_insert(struct nilfs_bmap
*btree,
/* convert and insert */
dat = NILFS_BMAP_USE_VBN(btree) ? nilfs_bmap_get_dat(btree) : NULL;
- nilfs_btree_init(btree);
+ __nilfs_btree_init(btree);
if (nreq != NULL) {
nilfs_bmap_commit_alloc_ptr(btree, dreq, dat);
nilfs_bmap_commit_alloc_ptr(btree, nreq, dat);
@@ -2294,12 +2324,23 @@ static const struct nilfs_bmap_operations
nilfs_btree_ops_gc = {
.bop_gather_data= NULL,
};
-int nilfs_btree_init(struct nilfs_bmap *bmap)
+static void __nilfs_btree_init(struct nilfs_bmap *bmap)
{
bmap->b_ops = &nilfs_btree_ops;
bmap->b_nchildren_per_block =
NILFS_BTREE_NODE_NCHILDREN_MAX(nilfs_btree_node_size(bmap));
- return 0;
+}
+
+int nilfs_btree_init(struct nilfs_bmap *bmap)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ __nilfs_btree_init(bmap);
+
+ if (nilfs_btree_root_broken(nilfs_btree_get_root(bmap),
+ bmap->b_inode->i_ino))
+ ret = -EIO;
+ return ret;
}
void nilfs_btree_init_gc(struct nilfs_bmap *bmap)
--
1.8.3.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH 0/1] nilfs2: fix potential memory overrun on inode
Hi Andrew, please queue the following patch as a bug fix. It fixes a memory overrun issue recently I found in the b-tree implementation of nilfs2. Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi -- Ryusuke Konishi (1): nilfs2: fix potential memory overrun on inode fs/nilfs2/btree.c | 47 --- 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
