From: Su Yue <[email protected]>
[ Upstream commit ea1d1ca4025ac6c075709f549f9aa036b5b6597d ]
Check item size before accessing the device item to avoid out of bound
access, similar to inode_item check.
Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
---
fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
index d4a3a56726aa8..4a5ee516845f7 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
@@ -947,6 +947,7 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf,
struct btrfs_key *key, int slot)
{
struct btrfs_dev_item *ditem;
+ const u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot);
if (key->objectid != BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID) {
dev_item_err(leaf, slot,
@@ -954,6 +955,13 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf,
key->objectid, BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID);
return -EUCLEAN;
}
+
+ if (unlikely(item_size != sizeof(*ditem))) {
+ dev_item_err(leaf, slot, "invalid item size: has %u expect %zu",
+ item_size, sizeof(*ditem));
+ return -EUCLEAN;
+ }
+
ditem = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_dev_item);
if (btrfs_device_id(leaf, ditem) != key->offset) {
dev_item_err(leaf, slot,
--
2.34.1
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:40:52PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: Su Yue <[email protected]>
>
> [ Upstream commit ea1d1ca4025ac6c075709f549f9aa036b5b6597d ]
>
> Check item size before accessing the device item to avoid out of bound
> access, similar to inode_item check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> index d4a3a56726aa8..4a5ee516845f7 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> @@ -947,6 +947,7 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf,
> struct btrfs_key *key, int slot)
> {
> struct btrfs_dev_item *ditem;
> + const u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot);
>
> if (key->objectid != BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID) {
> dev_item_err(leaf, slot,
> @@ -954,6 +955,13 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct extent_buffer *leaf,
> key->objectid, BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID);
> return -EUCLEAN;
> }
> +
> + if (unlikely(item_size != sizeof(*ditem))) {
> + dev_item_err(leaf, slot, "invalid item size: has %u expect %zu",
> + item_size, sizeof(*ditem));
> + return -EUCLEAN;
> + }
> +
> ditem = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_dev_item);
> if (btrfs_device_id(leaf, ditem) != key->offset) {
> dev_item_err(leaf, slot,
> --
> 2.34.1
>
This adds a build warning, showing that the backport is not correct, so
I'll go drop this :(
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri 18 Feb 2022 at 11:36, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:40:52PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> From: Su Yue <[email protected]>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit ea1d1ca4025ac6c075709f549f9aa036b5b6597d ]
>>
>> Check item size before accessing the device item to avoid out
>> of bound
>> access, similar to inode_item check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> index d4a3a56726aa8..4a5ee516845f7 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
>> @@ -947,6 +947,7 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct
>> extent_buffer *leaf,
>> struct btrfs_key *key, int slot)
>> {
>> struct btrfs_dev_item *ditem;
>> + const u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot);
>>
>> if (key->objectid != BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID) {
>> dev_item_err(leaf, slot,
>> @@ -954,6 +955,13 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct
>> extent_buffer *leaf,
>> key->objectid,
>> BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID);
>> return -EUCLEAN;
>> }
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(item_size != sizeof(*ditem))) {
>> + dev_item_err(leaf, slot, "invalid item size: has
>> %u expect %zu",
>> + item_size, sizeof(*ditem));
>> + return -EUCLEAN;
>> + }
>> +
>> ditem = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_dev_item);
>> if (btrfs_device_id(leaf, ditem) != key->offset) {
>> dev_item_err(leaf, slot,
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>
> This adds a build warning, showing that the backport is not
> correct, so
> I'll go drop this :(
>
And the warning is
========================================================================
arch/x86/kernel/head_64.o: warning: objtool: .text+0x5:
unreachable instruction
fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c: In function
\342\200\230check_dev_item\342\200\231:
fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:950:53: warning: passing argument 2 of
\342\200\230btrfs_item_size\342\200\231 makes pointer from integer
without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
950 | const u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot);
| ^~~~
| |
| int
In file included from fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:21:
fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1474:48: note: expected \342\200\230const struct
btrfs_item *\342\200\231 but argument is of type
\342\200\230int\342\200\231
1474 | const type *s)
\
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~^
fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1833:1: note: in expansion of macro
\342\200\230BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS\342\200\231
1833 | BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS(item_size, struct btrfs_item, size,
32);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
========================================================================
The upstream patchset[1] merged in 5.17-rc1, changed second
parameter
of btrfs_item_size() from btrfs_item * to int directly.
So yes, the backport is wrong.
I'm not familiar with stable backport progress. Should I file a
patch
using btrfs_item *? Or just drop it?
The patch is related to 0c982944af27d131d3b74242f3528169f66950ad
but
I wonder why the 0c98294 is not selected automatically.
Thanks.
[1]:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/cover/[email protected]/
--
Su
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 07:25:20PM +0800, Su Yue wrote:
>
> On Fri 18 Feb 2022 at 11:36, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:40:52PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > From: Su Yue <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit ea1d1ca4025ac6c075709f549f9aa036b5b6597d ]
> > >
> > > Check item size before accessing the device item to avoid out of
> > > bound
> > > access, similar to inode_item check.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Su Yue <[email protected]>
> > > Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> > > index d4a3a56726aa8..4a5ee516845f7 100644
> > > --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c
> > > @@ -947,6 +947,7 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct extent_buffer
> > > *leaf,
> > > struct btrfs_key *key, int slot)
> > > {
> > > struct btrfs_dev_item *ditem;
> > > + const u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot);
> > >
> > > if (key->objectid != BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID) {
> > > dev_item_err(leaf, slot,
> > > @@ -954,6 +955,13 @@ static int check_dev_item(struct extent_buffer
> > > *leaf,
> > > key->objectid, BTRFS_DEV_ITEMS_OBJECTID);
> > > return -EUCLEAN;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + if (unlikely(item_size != sizeof(*ditem))) {
> > > + dev_item_err(leaf, slot, "invalid item size: has %u expect %zu",
> > > + item_size, sizeof(*ditem));
> > > + return -EUCLEAN;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ditem = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_dev_item);
> > > if (btrfs_device_id(leaf, ditem) != key->offset) {
> > > dev_item_err(leaf, slot,
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
> >
> > This adds a build warning, showing that the backport is not correct, so
> > I'll go drop this :(
> >
> And the warning is
> ========================================================================
> arch/x86/kernel/head_64.o: warning: objtool: .text+0x5: unreachable
> instruction
> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c: In function \342\200\230check_dev_item\342\200\231:
> fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:950:53: warning: passing argument 2 of
> \342\200\230btrfs_item_size\342\200\231 makes pointer from integer without a
> cast [-Wint-conversion]
> 950 | const u32 item_size = btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot);
> | ^~~~
> | |
> | int
> In file included from fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:21:
> fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1474:48: note: expected \342\200\230const struct btrfs_item
> *\342\200\231 but argument is of type \342\200\230int\342\200\231
> 1474 | const type *s) \
> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^
> fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1833:1: note: in expansion of macro
> \342\200\230BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS\342\200\231
> 1833 | BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS(item_size, struct btrfs_item, size, 32);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ========================================================================
>
> The upstream patchset[1] merged in 5.17-rc1, changed second parameter
> of btrfs_item_size() from btrfs_item * to int directly.
> So yes, the backport is wrong.
>
> I'm not familiar with stable backport progress. Should I file a patch
> using btrfs_item *? Or just drop it?
If you think this needs to be in the stable tree, yes please backport it
and send it to us.
> The patch is related to 0c982944af27d131d3b74242f3528169f66950ad but
> I wonder why the 0c98294 is not selected automatically.
No idea, if you think that is needed to, please send it to us.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 07:25:20PM +0800, Su Yue wrote:
> On Fri 18 Feb 2022 at 11:36, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 01:40:52PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> \
> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~^
> fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1833:1: note: in expansion of macro
> \342\200\230BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS\342\200\231
> 1833 | BTRFS_SETGET_FUNCS(item_size, struct btrfs_item, size,
> 32);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ========================================================================
>
> The upstream patchset[1] merged in 5.17-rc1, changed second
> parameter
> of btrfs_item_size() from btrfs_item * to int directly.
> So yes, the backport is wrong.
>
> I'm not familiar with stable backport progress. Should I file a
> patch
> using btrfs_item *? Or just drop it?
>
> The patch is related to 0c982944af27d131d3b74242f3528169f66950ad
> but
> I wonder why the 0c98294 is not selected automatically.
We don't rely on the automatic selection, I evaluate all patches for
stable inclusion and add the CC: tag, this works well. Not all patches
need to go to stable, but AUTOSEL sometimes picks patches that could be
there and if it's not entirely wrong I don't object.