Received: by 10.192.165.148 with SMTP id m20csp4198873imm; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqEG8KyXa7bERlWd+KOxnApyCC41KgTjQI2aqqEQfjuBlu+YBP/lJ+rrzc/96gDBoxGUFv5 X-Received: by 2002:a63:2bc4:: with SMTP id r187-v6mr10411032pgr.231.1525120913779; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1525120913; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=oETANBiA4N93wQTV9O7fXmNhNzJTW+lVfycA9g2SDloqUokP+GnMlhivxNKIc3fjPZ N2cJ8ROzXz4jJZBjm1W2qlyXz/bqOgNj6gNxUtPZT8kVOJo8s5H/wmBQi7iiMGDwdV7H jeEgY/lHsDN537H1vDvQzYo9B/QajJLyfy+dsjvL/NrjN2JizniBaN2ZuR5SR9+V0WRF CjR5L4BWZ8J12D8Huzes3iGCosZmY3D1uzIkjD7tV3Hd/0JdSKHZw6CjAFB7AbtCUccZ SkR7a1ZccsoihIuOt5b7EcFmu1xenKpg/u2gUMcNRMcozXr0gUJ4rPG7wczf6WFI40W2 Eg3Q== 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=quotczNzOIXcmidLDvUK/lHzr7h10HAtuWhr7dKEB2c=; b=MPKXhc4Rw/DBsOP1RSgkzmuLD3S2Pi0Uk2wjQ16az3dznCCNf84iza3GR+nGPmgSlk Ym82MQl1jb9EL8Af6iNjPJXY+qttFaKlvgJzPGzUvi990lxPS19rci/tcPFEuLl030uk unVIdbr3cQAX0LCvB7pzN8OMh9tymT6H7rZSpYAzXn0BasMMdjk9NE0uIQPtrxgmf8Tv BpOV6CE/KkwcxV8F2fnN4Xpif58nPGKE2NaV+edqypSTy5gXi02iUb2d2DhOAuMdK3qV Dt6zaJhGY4m2/iMf+crkJzWCEE4WkFRS3k1oM5fnklI7ET8f9Awq0aXFG7C1GAK3i6dY EXkg== 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 h3-v6si6570708pgf.314.2018.04.30.13.41.39; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:41:53 -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 S1755453AbeD3UkX (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:40:23 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57722 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755182AbeD3TYC (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:24:02 -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 CC3FA22DC9; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:24:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CC3FA22DC9 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 3.18 03/25] ext4: fix bitmap position validation Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:23:10 -0700 Message-Id: <20180430183910.946761096@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.0 In-Reply-To: <20180430183910.801976983@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180430183910.801976983@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 3.18-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 + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_itb_per_group),