Re: [PATCH] Revert "f2fs: avoid out-of-range memory access"

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 08/06, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2019/8/6 9:28, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 08/06, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2019/8/6 8:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 08/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> As Pavel Machek reported:
> >>>>
> >>>> "We normally use -EUCLEAN to signal filesystem corruption. Plus, it is
> >>>> good idea to report it to the syslog and mark filesystem as "needing
> >>>> fsck" if filesystem can do that."
> >>>>
> >>>> Still we need improve the original patch with:
> >>>> - use unlikely keyword
> >>>> - add message print
> >>>> - return EUCLEAN
> >>>>
> >>>> However, after rethink this patch, I don't think we should add such
> >>>> condition check here as below reasons:
> >>>> - We have already checked the field in f2fs_sanity_check_ckpt(),
> >>>> - If there is fs corrupt or security vulnerability, there is nothing
> >>>> to guarantee the field is integrated after the check, unless we do
> >>>> the check before each of its use, however no filesystem does that.
> >>>> - We only have similar check for bitmap, which was added due to there
> >>>> is bitmap corruption happened on f2fs' runtime in product.
> >>>> - There are so many key fields in SB/CP/NAT did have such check
> >>>> after f2fs_sanity_check_{sb,cp,..}.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I propose to revert this unneeded check.
> >>>
> >>> IIRC, this came from security vulnerability report which can access
> >>
> >> I don't think that's correct report, since we have checked validation of that
> >> field during mount, if it can be ruined after that, any variables can't be trusted.
> > 
> > I assumed this was reproduced with a fuzzed image.
> 
> I expect f2fs_sanity_check_ckpt() should reject mounting such fuzzed image.

It seems I should have reviewed this more carefully. Checking the security
concern one more time.

> 
> > I'll check it with Ocean.
> > 
> >>
> >> Now we just check bitmaps at real-time, because we have encountered such bitmap
> >> corruption in product.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> out-of-boundary memory region. Could you write another patch to address the
> >>> above issues?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This reverts commit 56f3ce675103e3fb9e631cfb4131fc768bc23e9a.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 5 -----
> >>>>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>>> index 9693fa4c8971..2eff9c008ae0 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>>> @@ -3492,11 +3492,6 @@ static int read_compacted_summaries(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> >>>>  		seg_i = CURSEG_I(sbi, i);
> >>>>  		segno = le32_to_cpu(ckpt->cur_data_segno[i]);
> >>>>  		blk_off = le16_to_cpu(ckpt->cur_data_blkoff[i]);
> >>>> -		if (blk_off > ENTRIES_IN_SUM) {
> >>>> -			f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1);
> >>>> -			f2fs_put_page(page, 1);
> >>>> -			return -EFAULT;
> >>>> -		}
> >>>>  		seg_i->next_segno = segno;
> >>>>  		reset_curseg(sbi, i, 0);
> >>>>  		seg_i->alloc_type = ckpt->alloc_type[i];
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> 2.18.0.rc1
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >