Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:46:52 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ext4: reject 1k block fs on the first block of disk | From | Tudor Ambarus <> |
| |
Hi, Ted!
On 2/15/23 04:32, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 09:58:03AM +0800, Jun Nie wrote: >> Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> 于2023年1月4日周三 03:17写道: >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 09:45:02AM +0800, Jun Nie wrote: >>>> For 1k-block filesystems, the filesystem starts at block 1, not block 0. >>>> If start_fsb is 0, it will be bump up to s_first_data_block. Then >>>> ext4_get_group_no_and_offset don't know what to do and return garbage >>>> results (blockgroup 2^32-1). The underflow make index >>>> exceed es->s_groups_count in ext4_get_group_info() and trigger the BUG_ON. >>>> >>>> Fixes: 4a4956249dac0 ("ext4: fix off-by-one fsmap error on 1k block filesystems") >>>> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=79d5768e9bfe362911ac1a5057a36fc6b5c30002 >>>> Reported-by: syzbot+6be2b977c89f79b6b153@syzkaller.appspotmail.com >>>> Signed-off-by: Jun Nie <jun.nie@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> fs/ext4/fsmap.c | 6 ++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/fsmap.c b/fs/ext4/fsmap.c >>>> index 4493ef0c715e..1aef127b0634 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/ext4/fsmap.c >>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/fsmap.c >>>> @@ -702,6 +702,12 @@ int ext4_getfsmap(struct super_block *sb, struct ext4_fsmap_head *head, >>>> if (handlers[i].gfd_dev > head->fmh_keys[0].fmr_device) >>>> memset(&dkeys[0], 0, sizeof(struct ext4_fsmap)); >>>> >>>> + /* >>>> + * Re-check the range after above limit operation and reject >>>> + * 1K fs on block 0 as fs should start block 1. */ >>>> + if (dkeys[0].fmr_physical ==0 && dkeys[1].fmr_physical == 0) >>>> + continue; >>> >>> ...and if this filesystem has 4k blocks, and therefore *does* define a >>> block 0? >> >> Yes, this is a real corner case test :-) > > So I'm really nervous about this change. I don't understand the code; > and I don't understand how the reproducer works. I can certainly > reproduce it using the reproducer found here[1], but it seems to > require running multiple processes all creating loop devices and then > running FS_IOC_GETMAP. > > [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=79d5768e9bfe362911ac1a5057a36fc6b5c30002 > > If I change the reproducer to just run the execute_one() once, it > doesn't trigger the bug. It seems to only trigger when you have > multiple processes all racing to create a loop device, mount the file > system, try running FS_IOC_GETMAP --- and then delete the loop device > without actually unmounting the file system. Which is **weird***. > > I've tried taking the image, and just running "xfs_io -c fsmap /mnt", > and that doesn't trigger it either. > > And I don't understand the reply to Darrick's question about why it's > safe to add the check since for 4k block file systems, block 0 *is* > valid. > > So if someone can explain to me what is going on here with this code > (there are too many abstractions and what's going on with keys is just > making my head hurt), *and* what the change actually does, and how to > reproduce the problem with a ***simple*** reproducer -- the syzbot > mess doesn't count, that would be great. But applying a change that I > don't understand to code I don't understand, to fix a reproducer which > I also doesn't understand, just doesn't make me feel comfortable. >
Let me share what I understood until now. The low key is zeroed. The high key is defined and uses a fmr_physical of value zero, which is smaller than the first data block for the 1k-block ext4 fs (which starts at offset 1024).
-> ext4_getfsmap_datadev() keys[0].fmr_physical = 0, keys[1].fmr_physical = 0 bofs = le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_first_data_block) = 1, eofs = 256 start_fsb = keys[0].fmr_physical = 1, end_fsb = keys[1].fmr_physical = 0 -> ext4_get_group_no_and_offset() blocknr = 1, le32_to_cpu(es->s_first_data_block) =1 start_ag = 0, first_cluster = 0 -> blocknr = 0, le32_to_cpu(es->s_first_data_block) =1 end_ag = 4294967295, last_cluster = 8191
Then there's a loop that stops when info->gfi_agno <= end_ag; that will trigger the BUG_ON in ext4_get_group_info() as the group nr exceeds EXT4_SB(sb)->s_groups_count) -> ext4_mballoc_query_range() -> ext4_mb_load_buddy() -> ext4_mb_load_buddy_gfp() -> ext4_get_group_info()
It's an out of bounds request and Darrick suggested to not return any mapping for the byte range 0-1023 for the 1k-block filesystem. The alternative would be to return -EINVAL when the high key starts at fmr_phisical of value zero for the 1k-block fs.
In order to reproduce this one would have to create an 1k-block ext4 fs and to pass a high key with fmr_physical of value zero, thus I would expect to reproduce it with something like this: xfs_io -c 'fsmap -d 0 0' /mnt/scratch
However when doing this I notice that in xfsprogs-dev/io/fsmap.c l->fmr_device and h->fmr_device will have value zero, FS_IOC_GETFSMAP is called and then we receive no entries (head->fmh_entries = 0). Now I'm trying to see what I do wrong, and how to reproduce the bug.
Cheers, ta
| |