Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4+bounces-2790-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:27:02 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
Cc: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com>, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
	coreteam@netfilter.org, davem@davemloft.net, fw@strlen.de,
	jaegeuk@kernel.org, kadlec@netfilter.org, kuba@kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@intel.com, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, pablo@netfilter.org,
	syzbot+340581ba9dceb7e06fb3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
	syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] ext4: check hash version and filesystem casefolded
 consistent
Message-ID: <20240606062702.GB324380@sol.localdomain>
References: <87plsym65w.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be>
 <20240604011718.3360272-1-lizhi.xu@windriver.com>
 <87le3kle87.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87le3kle87.fsf@mailhost.krisman.be>

On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:06:32PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 03 Jun 2024 10:50:51 -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> >> > When mounting the ext4 filesystem, if the hash version and casefolded are not
> >> > consistent, exit the mounting.
> >> >
> >> > Reported-by: syzbot+340581ba9dceb7e06fb3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> >> > Signed-off-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  fs/ext4/super.c | 5 +++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> >> > index c682fb927b64..0ad326504c50 100644
> >> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> >> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> >> > @@ -5262,6 +5262,11 @@ static int __ext4_fill_super(struct fs_context *fc, struct super_block *sb)
> >> >  		goto failed_mount;
> >> >  
> >> >  	ext4_hash_info_init(sb);
> >> > +	if (es->s_def_hash_version == DX_HASH_SIPHASH && 
> >> > +	    !ext4_has_feature_casefold(sb)) {
> >> 
> >> Can we ever have DX_HASH_SIPHASH set up in the super block?  I thought
> >> it was used solely for directories where ext4_hash_in_dirent(inode) is
> >> true.
> > The value of s'def_hash_version is obtained by reading the super block from the
> > buffer cache of the block device in ext4_load_super().
> 
> Yes, I know.  My point is whether this check should just be:
> 
> if (es->s_def_hash_version == DX_HASH_SIPHASH)
> 	goto failed_mount;
> 
> Since, IIUC, DX_HASH_SIPHASH is done per-directory and not written to
> the sb.
> 

That seems right to me.  SipHash can never be the default because it's only used
on directories that are both encrypted and casefolded.

- Eric