2017-12-15 06:26:36

by Yunlong Song

Subject: [PATCH] fsck.f2fs: check nid range before use to avoid segmentation fault

Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>
---
fsck/fsck.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
index 11b8b0b..2212aa3 100644
--- a/fsck/fsck.c
+++ b/fsck/fsck.c
@@ -14,6 +14,15 @@
char *tree_mark;
uint32_t tree_mark_size = 256;

+static inline int check_nid_range(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t nid)
+{
+ if (nid < F2FS_ROOT_INO(sbi))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (nid >= NM_I(sbi)->max_nid)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ return 0;
+}
+
int f2fs_set_main_bitmap(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 blk, int type)
{
struct f2fs_fsck *fsck = F2FS_FSCK(sbi);
@@ -740,7 +749,7 @@ void fsck_chk_inode_blk(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 nid,
for (idx = 0; idx < 5; idx++) {
u32 nid = le32_to_cpu(node_blk->i.i_nid[idx]);

- if (nid != 0) {
+ if (nid != 0 && !check_nid_range(sbi, nid)) {
struct node_info ni;

get_node_info(sbi, nid, &ni);
--
1.8.5.2

2017-12-15 10:08:24

by Sheng Yong

Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsck.f2fs: check nid range before use to avoid segmentation fault

On 2017/12/15 14:26, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>
> ---
> fsck/fsck.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
> index 11b8b0b..2212aa3 100644
> --- a/fsck/fsck.c
> +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,15 @@
> char *tree_mark;
> uint32_t tree_mark_size = 256;
>
> +static inline int check_nid_range(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t nid)
> +{
> + if (nid < F2FS_ROOT_INO(sbi))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (nid >= NM_I(sbi)->max_nid)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
Hi Yunlong,
I think you could use IS_VALID_NID() instead of check_nid_range. Maybe we could
add the check 'if (nid < F2FS_ROOT_INO(sbi))' to IS_VALID_NID().

thanks,
Sheng
> int f2fs_set_main_bitmap(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 blk, int type)
> {
> struct f2fs_fsck *fsck = F2FS_FSCK(sbi);
> @@ -740,7 +749,7 @@ void fsck_chk_inode_blk(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 nid,
> for (idx = 0; idx < 5; idx++) {
> u32 nid = le32_to_cpu(node_blk->i.i_nid[idx]);
>
> - if (nid != 0) {
> + if (nid != 0 && !check_nid_range(sbi, nid)) {
> struct node_info ni;
>
> get_node_info(sbi, nid, &ni);
>

2017-12-18 11:54:14

by Yunlong Song

Subject: [PATCH v2] fsck.f2fs: check nid range before use to avoid segmentation fault

Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>
---
fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
index 11b8b0b..faf0663 100644
--- a/fsck/fsck.c
+++ b/fsck/fsck.c
@@ -740,7 +740,7 @@ void fsck_chk_inode_blk(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 nid,
for (idx = 0; idx < 5; idx++) {
u32 nid = le32_to_cpu(node_blk->i.i_nid[idx]);

- if (nid != 0) {
+ if (nid != 0 && IS_VALID_NID(sbi, nid)) {
struct node_info ni;

get_node_info(sbi, nid, &ni);
--
1.8.5.2

2017-12-23 03:14:20

by Chao Yu

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fsck.f2fs: check nid range before use to avoid segmentation fault

On 2017/12/18 19:53, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>

How about introducing IS_AVAILABLE_NID as below, and use it instead?

#define IS_AVAILABLE_NID(sbi, nid) (IS_VALID_NID(sbi, nid) && (nid >= root_ino))

Thanks,

> ---
> fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
> index 11b8b0b..faf0663 100644
> --- a/fsck/fsck.c
> +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
> @@ -740,7 +740,7 @@ void fsck_chk_inode_blk(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 nid,
> for (idx = 0; idx < 5; idx++) {
> u32 nid = le32_to_cpu(node_blk->i.i_nid[idx]);
>
> - if (nid != 0) {
> + if (nid != 0 && IS_VALID_NID(sbi, nid)) {
> struct node_info ni;
>
> get_node_info(sbi, nid, &ni);
>

2017-12-23 03:37:29

by Yunlong Song

Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fsck.f2fs: check nid range before use to avoid segmentation fault

Both are OK, since nid < root_ino cannot trigger segmentation fault
(nat_block->entries[nid%NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK]).

On 2017/12/23 11:14, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/12/18 19:53, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>
> How about introducing IS_AVAILABLE_NID as below, and use it instead?
>
> #define IS_AVAILABLE_NID(sbi, nid) (IS_VALID_NID(sbi, nid) && (nid >= root_ino))
>
> Thanks,
>
>> ---
>> fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
>> index 11b8b0b..faf0663 100644
>> --- a/fsck/fsck.c
>> +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
>> @@ -740,7 +740,7 @@ void fsck_chk_inode_blk(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 nid,
>> for (idx = 0; idx < 5; idx++) {
>> u32 nid = le32_to_cpu(node_blk->i.i_nid[idx]);
>>
>> - if (nid != 0) {
>> + if (nid != 0 && IS_VALID_NID(sbi, nid)) {
>> struct node_info ni;
>>
>> get_node_info(sbi, nid, &ni);
>>
>
> .
>

--
Thanks,
Yunlong Song