Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: fix out-of-bounds write in ocfs2_write_end_inline

From: Andrew Morton

Date: Fri Apr 03 2026 - 02:48:26 EST


On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 14:38:30 +0800 Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> KASAN reports a use-after-free write of 4086 bytes in
> ocfs2_write_end_inline, called from ocfs2_write_end_nolock during a
> copy_file_range splice fallback on a corrupted ocfs2 filesystem mounted
> on a loop device. The actual bug is an out-of-bounds write past the
> inode block buffer, not a true use-after-free. The write overflows into
> an adjacent freed page, which KASAN reports as UAF.
>
> The root cause is that ocfs2_try_to_write_inline_data trusts the
> on-disk id_count field to determine whether a write fits in inline
> data. On a corrupted filesystem, id_count can exceed the physical
> maximum inline data capacity, causing writes to overflow the inode
> block buffer.
>
> Call trace (crash path):
>
> vfs_copy_file_range (fs/read_write.c:1634)
> do_splice_direct
> splice_direct_to_actor
> iter_file_splice_write
> ocfs2_file_write_iter
> generic_perform_write
> ocfs2_write_end
> ocfs2_write_end_nolock (fs/ocfs2/aops.c:1949)
> ocfs2_write_end_inline (fs/ocfs2/aops.c:1915)
> memcpy_from_folio <-- KASAN: write OOB
>
> So add id_count upper bound check in ocfs2_validate_inode_block() to
> alongside the existing i_size check to fix it.

Thanks.

> --- a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c
> @@ -1505,6 +1505,16 @@ int ocfs2_validate_inode_block(struct super_block *sb,
> goto bail;
> }
>
> + if (le16_to_cpu(data->id_count) >
> + ocfs2_max_inline_data_with_xattr(sb, di)) {
> + rc = ocfs2_error(sb,
> + "Invalid dinode #%llu: inline data id_count %u exceeds max %d\n",
> + (unsigned long long)bh->b_blocknr,
> + le16_to_cpu(data->id_count),
> + ocfs2_max_inline_data_with_xattr(sb, di));
> + goto bail;
> + }
> +
> if (le64_to_cpu(di->i_size) > le16_to_cpu(data->id_count)) {
> rc = ocfs2_error(sb,
> "Invalid dinode #%llu: inline data i_size %llu exceeds id_count %u\n",

Even though the surrounding code is from 2025 (1524af3685b35), I think
this bug predates 1524af3685b35?

If so, I expect the -stable people will have trouble backporting this.
If so, they'll report it and shall ask for a reworked version.