Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFcO6XOdMe-RgN8MCUT59cYEVBp+3VYTW-exzxhKdBk57q0GYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YPhbU/umyUZLdxIw@casper.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <YPhbU/umyUZLdxIw@casper.infradead.org>
From:   butt3rflyh4ck <butterflyhuangxx@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:43:10 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFcO6XO0GR8GBVD7hT8VL5qey3cCYriMqvt0Dan72i5yVP6FxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A shift-out-of-bounds in minix_statfs in fs/minix/inode.c
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        djwong@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 1:37 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 01:14:06AM +0800, butt3rflyh4ck wrote:
> > ms = (struct minix_super_block *) bh->b_data; /// --------------> set
> > minix_super_block pointer
> > sbi->s_ms = ms;
> > sbi->s_sbh = bh;
> > sbi->s_mount_state = ms->s_state;
> > sbi->s_ninodes = ms->s_ninodes;
> > sbi->s_nzones = ms->s_nzones;
> > sbi->s_imap_blocks = ms->s_imap_blocks;
> > sbi->s_zmap_blocks = ms->s_zmap_blocks;
> > sbi->s_firstdatazone = ms->s_firstdatazone;
> > sbi->s_log_zone_size = ms->s_log_zone_size;  // ------------------>
> > set sbi->s_log_zone_size
>

> So what you're saying is that if you construct a malicious minix image,
> you can produce undefined behaviour?

Yes, the attachment is a reproduction. just compile it and run.

>That's not something we're
> traditionally interested in, unless the filesystem is one customarily
> used for data interchange (like FAT or iso9660).
>

These file systems are my fuzzing targets.


Regards,
 butt3rflyh4ck.


-- 
Active Defense Lab of Venustech