Received: by 10.192.165.148 with SMTP id m20csp4156277imm; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:50:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpN2xNCjMDRXvTkUEofFvZldGKfdZaRRLSP3hANSYJdUY/EAKrvniX9tEwTd7Vw9N9Yu2cg X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a512:: with SMTP id s18-v6mr13580589plq.223.1525117854937; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:50:54 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1525117854; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ey9HYafbuumnEriuD4MY7aWk6mL4MPXc7q2GwiSwGLmcrK1HdRYNPnQQqQCcOiIfCF 4EU9eYmLGlDLRw1iPUz5aaLrAp7rC8T6qdZkvb20pnMwVU5uIl99tDEDbqsfQWqTtdhK i31TOVbOwlsoY53rvtNdrUfarcdUJJkFbvoD6+bq151A4dF5mkG0m78jVCombV9CoC3+ FkiBI9l4IN/xJcqQHFtoxEUZV6vRDWtb49uehe34L+4DxZEZU5T8b8fNOY1FaCFgwPqJ OI86d+byWBTusEnTauQBihJBhj/OxTNK4qETJbvV50hkoIo56UTRUHk+Ae6C+RRoWVzw g/dQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:dmarc-filter :arc-authentication-results; bh=zht4xJTJ4szQILfemZYBs0YUHVQKwDPwB/wGTLgSMzs=; b=T5T4kN+Nu7ng3NC4ryaPoMlv6RRMh+kphTpe1KxKtcNQRwnjbKjaoLGuQvTYF0Vpdx pR8BtnSDdYbLyx0nq5G9sHNCOYaLvdylkc5mQN4fxmia+d7IndDkZvlJenbX3wbCnbST QcUsNIwFEz6bZr507Ynkv7/snO5a6vrujIGpt0sjxrCZ0FxoPU9gEtU1kH0RDUa36+xO 5xUal4XMagJj8cqjdpaH96I5YnUfLXv0VtC5lS5dj+UaQuu14SmcYvXiBqgo6hTUMhNC weWMLZ0V4V5rF5sY7tBvokl+8Jy71LtMwxBcm3d2l06UtHJHKtaA2oy9cROGLZZhCcIL Sp5A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r74si7987386pfe.168.2018.04.30.12.50.41; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756644AbeD3Ttr (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:49:47 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35570 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756207AbeD3T2K (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:28:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [104.132.1.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C72B022DCB; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:28:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C72B022DCB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Lukas Czerner , Theodore Tso , Ilya Dryomov Subject: [PATCH 4.16 005/113] ext4: fix bitmap position validation Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:23:36 -0700 Message-Id: <20180430184015.299588711@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.0 In-Reply-To: <20180430184015.043892819@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180430184015.043892819@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.65 X-stable: review MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 4.16-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Lukas Czerner commit 22be37acce25d66ecf6403fc8f44df9c5ded2372 upstream. Currently in ext4_valid_block_bitmap() we expect the bitmap to be positioned anywhere between 0 and s_blocksize clusters, but that's wrong because the bitmap can be placed anywhere in the block group. This causes false positives when validating bitmaps on perfectly valid file system layouts. Fix it by checking whether the bitmap is within the group boundary. The problem can be reproduced using the following mkfs -t ext3 -E stride=256 /dev/vdb1 mount /dev/vdb1 /mnt/test cd /mnt/test wget https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/linux-4.16.3.tar.xz tar xf linux-4.16.3.tar.xz This will result in the warnings in the logs EXT4-fs error (device vdb1): ext4_validate_block_bitmap:399: comm tar: bg 84: block 2774529: invalid block bitmap [ Changed slightly for clarity and to not drop a overflow test -- TYT ] Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o Reported-by: Ilya Dryomov Fixes: 7dac4a1726a9 ("ext4: add validity checks for bitmap block numbers") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/ext4/balloc.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) --- a/fs/ext4/balloc.c +++ b/fs/ext4/balloc.c @@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bit struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb); ext4_grpblk_t offset; ext4_grpblk_t next_zero_bit; + ext4_grpblk_t max_bit = EXT4_CLUSTERS_PER_GROUP(sb); ext4_fsblk_t blk; ext4_fsblk_t group_first_block; @@ -338,7 +339,7 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bit /* check whether block bitmap block number is set */ blk = ext4_block_bitmap(sb, desc); offset = blk - group_first_block; - if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= sb->s_blocksize || + if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= max_bit || !ext4_test_bit(EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset), bh->b_data)) /* bad block bitmap */ return blk; @@ -346,7 +347,7 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bit /* check whether the inode bitmap block number is set */ blk = ext4_inode_bitmap(sb, desc); offset = blk - group_first_block; - if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= sb->s_blocksize || + if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= max_bit || !ext4_test_bit(EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset), bh->b_data)) /* bad block bitmap */ return blk; @@ -354,8 +355,8 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bit /* check whether the inode table block number is set */ blk = ext4_inode_table(sb, desc); offset = blk - group_first_block; - if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= sb->s_blocksize || - EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset + sbi->s_itb_per_group) >= sb->s_blocksize) + if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= max_bit || + EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset + sbi->s_itb_per_group) >= max_bit) return blk; next_zero_bit = ext4_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset + sbi->s_itb_per_group),