linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] ext4: fix slab-out-of-bounds in ext4_mb_find_good_group_avg_frag

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]

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:00:11 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu,
	adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, ritesh.list@...il.com,
	ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com, adobriyan@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
	yangerkun@...wei.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] ext4: fix slab-out-of-bounds in
 ext4_mb_find_good_group_avg_frag_lists()

On Thu 14-03-24 19:24:56, Baokun Li wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> On 2024/3/14 18:30, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 27-02-24 17:11:43, Baokun Li wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > At 4k block size, the length of the s_mb_avg_fragment_size list is 14,
> > but an oversized s_mb_group_prealloc is set, causing slab-out-of-bounds
> > to be triggered by an attempt to access an element at index 29.
> > 
> > Add a new attr_id attr_clusters_in_group with values in the range
> > [0, sbi->s_clusters_per_group] and declare mb_group_prealloc as
> > that type to fix the issue. In addition avoid returning an order
> > from mb_avg_fragment_size_order() greater than MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb)
> > and reduce some useless loops.
> > 
> > Fixes: 7e170922f06b ("ext4: Add allocation criteria 1.5 (CR1_5)")
> > CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
> > Looks good. Just one nit below. Otherwise feel free to add:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> > 
> > > ---
> > >   fs/ext4/mballoc.c |  6 ++++++
> > >   fs/ext4/sysfs.c   | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > >   2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> > > index 85a91a61b761..7ad089df2408 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> > > @@ -831,6 +831,8 @@ static int mb_avg_fragment_size_order(struct super_block *sb, ext4_grpblk_t len)
> > >   		return 0;
> > >   	if (order == MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb))
> > >   		order--;
> > > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order > MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb)))
> > > +		order = MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb) - 1;
> > >   	return order;
> > >   }
> > > @@ -1057,6 +1059,10 @@ static void ext4_mb_choose_next_group_best_avail(struct ext4_allocation_context
> > >   			ac->ac_flags |= EXT4_MB_CR_BEST_AVAIL_LEN_OPTIMIZED;
> > >   			return;
> > >   		}
> > > +
> > > +		/* Skip some unnecessary loops. */
> > > +		if (unlikely(i > MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb)))
> > > +			i = MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb);
> > How can this possibly trigger now? MB_NUM_ORDERS is sb->s_blocksize_bits +
> > 2. 'i' is starting at fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) and ac_g_ex.fe_len shouldn't
> > be larger than clusters per group, hence fls() should be less than
> > sb->s_blocksize_bits? Am I missing something? And if yes, we should rather
> > make sure 'order' is never absurdly big?
> > 
> > I suspect this code is defensive upto a point of being confusing :)
> > 
> > Honza
> 
> Yes, this is indeed defensive code! Only walk into this branch when
> WARN_ON_ONCE(order > MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb)) is triggered.
> As previously mentioned by ojaswin in the following link:
> 
> "The reason for this is that otherwise when order is large eg 29,
> we would unnecessarily loop from i=29 to i=13 while always
> looking at the same avg_fragment_list[13]."
> 
> Link：https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZdQ7FEA7KC4eAMpg@li-bb2b2a4c-3307-11b2-a85c-8fa5c3a69313.ibm.com/
> 
> Thank you so much for the review! ღ( ´･ᴗ･` )

Thanks for the link. So what Ojaswin has suggested has been slightly
different though. He suggested to trim the order before the for loop, not
after the first iteration as you do which is what was confusing me. I'd
even suggest to replace your check with:

        /*      
         * mb_avg_fragment_size_order() returns order in a way that makes
         * retrieving back the length using (1 << order) inaccurate. Hence, use
         * fls() instead since we need to know the actual length while modifying
         * goal length.
         */     
-       order = fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) - 1;
+	order = min(fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len), MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb)) - 1;
        min_order = order - sbi->s_mb_best_avail_max_trim_order;
        if (min_order < 0)
                min_order = 0;

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR