Re: vfs: oops on open_by_handle_at() in linux-next

[Sage Weil]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 08:32:51PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Thank you, Sasha: this should fix it, and similar in other FSes.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [PATCH] tmpfs,ceph,gfs2,isofs,reiserfs,xfs: fix fh_len checking
> > > 
> > > Fuzzing with trinity oopsed on the 1st instruction of shmem_fh_to_dentry(),
> > > 	u64 inum = fid->raw[2];
> > > which is unhelpfully reported as at the end of shmem_alloc_inode():
> > > 
> > > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffff880061cd3000
> > > IP: [<ffffffff812190d0>] shmem_alloc_inode+0x40/0x40
> > > Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> > > Call Trace:
> > >  [<ffffffff81488649>] ? exportfs_decode_fh+0x79/0x2d0
> > >  [<ffffffff812d77c3>] do_handle_open+0x163/0x2c0
> > >  [<ffffffff812d792c>] sys_open_by_handle_at+0xc/0x10
> > >  [<ffffffff83a5f3f8>] tracesys+0xe1/0xe6
> > > 
> > > Right, tmpfs is being stupid to access fid->raw[2] before validating that
> > > fh_len includes it: the buffer kmalloc'ed by do_sys_name_to_handle() may
> > > fall at the end of a page, and the next page not be present.
> > > 
> > > But some other filesystems (ceph, gfs2, isofs, reiserfs, xfs) are being
> > > careless about fh_len too, in fh_to_dentry() and/or fh_to_parent(), and
> > > could oops in the same way: add the missing fh_len checks to those.
> > 
> > TBH, I really don't like it.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> > How about putting minimal acceptable fhandle
> > length into export_operations instead?
> 
> Hmm, but different "types" have different length constraints,
> and each fh_to_dentry() or fh_to_parent() handles several types.
> And the encode operations "encourage" using different lengths.
> 
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't know how to do
> as you propose, without multiplying the number of operations
> horribly, and changing all (not just these) filesystems.
> 
> But hack around to your heart's content, there's no need for
> this patch to go in if there's a better.

I'd just as soon take this patch and validate the size in the ceph 
methods.  We can always drop these checks if/when we enforce a lower-bound 
in generic code that makes them redundant, but I'd prefer to fix this 
sooner rather than later.

Thanks!
sage
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/