On 2024/7/16 15:49, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:11:55AM +0800, Baokun Li wrote:
On 2024/6/19 20:19, libaokun@huaweicloud.com wrote:
From: Baokun Li libaokun1@huawei.com
[ Upstream commit 13df4d44a3aaabe61cd01d277b6ee23ead2a5206 ]
We can trigger a slab-out-of-bounds with the following commands:
mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/$disk 10G mount /dev/$disk /tmp/test echo 2147483647 > /sys/fs/ext4/$disk/mb_group_prealloc echo test > /tmp/test/file && sync================================================================== BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ext4_mb_find_good_group_avg_frag_lists+0x8a/0x200 [ext4] Read of size 8 at addr ffff888121b9d0f0 by task kworker/u2:0/11 CPU: 0 PID: 11 Comm: kworker/u2:0 Tainted: GL 6.7.0-next-20240118 #521 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x2c/0x50 kasan_report+0xb6/0xf0 ext4_mb_find_good_group_avg_frag_lists+0x8a/0x200 [ext4] ext4_mb_regular_allocator+0x19e9/0x2370 [ext4] ext4_mb_new_blocks+0x88a/0x1370 [ext4] ext4_ext_map_blocks+0x14f7/0x2390 [ext4] ext4_map_blocks+0x569/0xea0 [ext4] ext4_do_writepages+0x10f6/0x1bc0 [ext4] [...] ==================================================================
The flow of issue triggering is as follows:
// Set s_mb_group_prealloc to 2147483647 via sysfs ext4_mb_new_blocks ext4_mb_normalize_request ext4_mb_normalize_group_request ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mb_group_prealloc ext4_mb_regular_allocator ext4_mb_choose_next_group ext4_mb_choose_next_group_best_avail mb_avg_fragment_size_order order = fls(len) - 2 = 29 ext4_mb_find_good_group_avg_frag_lists frag_list = &sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size[order] if (list_empty(frag_list)) // Trigger SOOB!
At 4k block size, the length of the s_mb_avg_fragment_size list is 14, but an oversized s_mb_group_prealloc is set, causing slab-out-of-bounds to be triggered by an attempt to access an element at index 29.
Add a new attr_id attr_clusters_in_group with values in the range [0, sbi->s_clusters_per_group] and declare mb_group_prealloc as that type to fix the issue. In addition avoid returning an order from mb_avg_fragment_size_order() greater than MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb) and reduce some useless loops.
Fixes: 7e170922f06b ("ext4: Add allocation criteria 1.5 (CR1_5)") CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Baokun Li libaokun1@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz Reviewed-by: Ojaswin Mujoo ojaswin@linux.ibm.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240319113325.3110393-5-libaokun1@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o tytso@mit.edu Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Baokun Li libaokun1@huawei.com
fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 4 ++++ fs/ext4/sysfs.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c index 714f83632e3f..66b5a68b0254 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c @@ -831,6 +831,8 @@ static int mb_avg_fragment_size_order(struct super_block *sb, ext4_grpblk_t len) return 0; if (order == MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb)) order--;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order > MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb)))
order = MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb) - 1;@@ -1008,6 +1010,8 @@ static void ext4_mb_choose_next_group_best_avail(struct ext4_allocation_context * goal length. */ order = fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) - 1;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order - 1 > MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb)))
order = MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb);diff --git a/fs/ext4/sysfs.c b/fs/ext4/sysfs.c index ca820620b974..d65dccb44ed5 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/sysfs.c +++ b/fs/ext4/sysfs.c @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ typedef enum { attr_trigger_test_error, attr_first_error_time, attr_last_error_time,
- attr_clusters_in_group, attr_feature, attr_pointer_ui, attr_pointer_ul,
@@ -207,13 +208,14 @@ EXT4_ATTR_FUNC(sra_exceeded_retry_limit, 0444); EXT4_ATTR_OFFSET(inode_readahead_blks, 0644, inode_readahead, ext4_sb_info, s_inode_readahead_blks); +EXT4_ATTR_OFFSET(mb_group_prealloc, 0644, clusters_in_group,
ext4_sb_info, s_mb_group_prealloc);-EXT4_RW_ATTR_SBI_UI(mb_group_prealloc, s_mb_group_prealloc); EXT4_RW_ATTR_SBI_UI(mb_max_linear_groups, s_mb_max_linear_groups); EXT4_RW_ATTR_SBI_UI(extent_max_zeroout_kb, s_extent_max_zeroout_kb); EXT4_ATTR(trigger_fs_error, 0200, trigger_test_error); @@ -392,6 +394,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_attr_show(struct kobject *kobj, (unsigned long long) percpu_counter_sum(&sbi->s_sra_exceeded_retry_limit)); case attr_inode_readahead:
- case attr_clusters_in_group: case attr_pointer_ui: if (!ptr) return 0;
@@ -469,6 +472,16 @@ static ssize_t ext4_attr_store(struct kobject *kobj, else *((unsigned int *) ptr) = t; return len;
- case attr_clusters_in_group:
Hi Greg,
if (!ptr)return 0;I've found that the commit that eventually gets merged in doesn't have this judgment.
6.6: 677ff4589f15 ("ext4: fix slab-out-of-bounds in ext4_mb_find_good_group_avg_frag_lists()") 6.9: b829687ae122 ("ext4: fix slab-out-of-bounds in ext4_mb_find_good_group_avg_frag_lists()")
This may result in a null pointer dereference.
History: https://lore.kernel.org/all/0d620010-c6b4-4f80-a835-451813f957e3@huawei.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240619121952.3508695-2-libaokun@huaweicloud.co... https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240625085542.189183696@linuxfoundation.org/
I don't understand, can you send a patch that fixes this?
Sure! And the information about CVE-2024-40955 needs to be updated.
Or should we just revert the original commits? If so, what commit ids need to be reverted?
thanks,
greg k-h
This patch was first adapted to stable by Sasha, then I realized there was a small problem with the adaptation. https://lore.kernel.org/all/0d620010-c6b4-4f80-a835-451813f957e3@huawei.com/
After communicating with you I sent a v2 version, then you dropped the previous patch and I didn't pay attention to it anymore. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240619121952.3508695-2-libaokun@huaweicloud.co...
Until this patch became CVE-2024-40955: https://lore.kernel.org/all/2024071224-CVE-2024-40955-43e2@gregkh/
My colleague is responsible for analyzing this CVE and backporting the patch from the stale branch. I was reviewing the patch and realized that the patch that ended up being merged in stable was wrong.
Regards, Baokun