2023-10-25 20:21:01

by Sergey Shtylyov

Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: data: fix possible overflow in check_swap_activate()

In check_swap_activate(), if the *while* loop exits early (0- or 1-page
long swap file), an overflow happens while calculating the value of the
span parameter as the lowest_pblock variable ends up being greater than
the highest_pblock variable. Let's set *span to 0 in this case...

Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the SVACE static
analysis tool.

Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <[email protected]>
---
This patch is against the 'master' branch of Jaegeuk Kim's F2FS repo...

fs/f2fs/data.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
index 916e317ac925..342cb0d5056d 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
@@ -4047,7 +4047,10 @@ static int check_swap_activate(struct swap_info_struct *sis,
cur_lblock += nr_pblocks;
}
ret = nr_extents;
- *span = 1 + highest_pblock - lowest_pblock;
+ if (lowest_pblock <= highest_pblock)
+ *span = 1 + highest_pblock - lowest_pblock;
+ else
+ *span = 0;
if (cur_lblock == 0)
cur_lblock = 1; /* force Empty message */
sis->max = cur_lblock;
--
2.26.3

2023-12-10 21:18:18

by Sergey Shtylyov

Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: data: fix possible overflow in check_swap_activate()

Hello!

Sorry for replying a month later than I should -- I got distracted by the
other Svace reports... It took a significant part of the weekend to swap this
stuff back in... :-/

On 11/7/23 6:29 PM, Chao Yu wrote:
[...]
>> In check_swap_activate(), if the *while* loop exits early (0- or 1-page
>> long swap file), an overflow happens while calculating the value of the
>> span parameter as the lowest_pblock variable ends up being greater than
>> the highest_pblock variable. Let's set *span to 0 in this case...
>
> What do you think of returning -EINVAL for such case? I assume this is a
> corner case.

I don't know the code well enough but I got the impression that iff
we have a file containing a single page, we'd have one successful call
of add_swap_extent(). Am I missing something?

>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the SVACE static
>> analysis tool.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> This patch is against the 'master' branch of Jaegeuk Kim's F2FS repo...
>>
>>   fs/f2fs/data.c | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> index 916e317ac925..342cb0d5056d 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> @@ -4047,7 +4047,10 @@ static int check_swap_activate(struct swap_info_struct *sis,
>>           cur_lblock += nr_pblocks;
>>       }
>>       ret = nr_extents;
>> -    *span = 1 + highest_pblock - lowest_pblock;
>> +    if (lowest_pblock <= highest_pblock)
>
> if (unlikely(higest_pblock < lowest_pblock))

Well, Greg KH says we shouldn't use unlikely() unless we can prove
that it indeed improves things...

>     return -EINVAL;
>
> *span = 1 + highest_pblock - lowest_pblock;
>
> Thanks,
>
>> +        *span = 1 + highest_pblock - lowest_pblock;
>> +    else
>> +        *span = 0;
>>       if (cur_lblock == 0)
>>           cur_lblock = 1;    /* force Empty message */
>>       sis->max = cur_lblock;

MBR, Sergey