On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 10:33:43AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 03:32:24PM +0530, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> > Hi Ted,
> >
> > I got a question on usage of e2fsck with -D option on EXT4 FS, where
> > file based encryption is enabled. Is this option supposed to work on
> > encrypted directories?
> >
> > I have encountered a case where e2fsck gets stuck
> > in duplicate_search_and_fix() due to strncmp checks done in this function
> > on encrypted file names, which may contain NUL characters.
> >
> > Also, even without -D option passed, there can be a case of duplicate
> > entries (i.e.,
> > ctx->dirs_to_hash is not NULL). In this case too we may see the same issue
> > in duplicate_search_and_fix() if the directory is encrypted.
> > Is my understanding correct? Please share your comments.
>
> Thanks, your understanding is indeed correct. Thanks for pointing
> this out. The following patch should fix the problem; can you
> confirm, if you have a convenient test case?
>
> - Ted
>
> From 5b8d7c51e51aef7879150b07f3967da4028862f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:26:11 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] e2fsck: fix e2fsck -D for encrypted directories
>
> If the directory entry is encrypted there may be embedded NUL
> characters; hence, we should use memcmp instead of strncmp when
> comparing strings. Otherwise, e2fsck can erroneously report that a
> directory have duplicant entries when doing an e2fsck -D check.
>
> Reported-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> e2fsck/rehash.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/e2fsck/rehash.c b/e2fsck/rehash.c
> index 22a58f333..77129e50d 100644
> --- a/e2fsck/rehash.c
> +++ b/e2fsck/rehash.c
> @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static EXT2_QSORT_TYPE name_cmp(const void *a, const void *b)
> if (min_len > he_b_len)
> min_len = he_b_len;
>
> - ret = strncmp(he_a->dir->name, he_b->dir->name, min_len);
> + ret = memcmp(he_a->dir->name, he_b->dir->name, min_len);
> if (ret == 0) {
> if (he_a_len > he_b_len)
> ret = 1;
> @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ static int duplicate_search_and_fix(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_filsys fs,
> if (!ent->dir->inode ||
> (ext2fs_dirent_name_len(ent->dir) !=
> ext2fs_dirent_name_len(prev->dir)) ||
> - strncmp(ent->dir->name, prev->dir->name,
> + memcmp(ent->dir->name, prev->dir->name,
> ext2fs_dirent_name_len(ent->dir)))
> continue;
> pctx.dirent = ent->dir;
> @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ static int duplicate_search_and_fix(e2fsck_t ctx, ext2_filsys fs,
> if ((i==j) ||
> (new_len !=
> (unsigned) ext2fs_dirent_name_len(fd->harray[j].dir)) ||
> - strncmp(new_name, fd->harray[j].dir->name, new_len))
> + memcmp(new_name, fd->harray[j].dir->name, new_len))
> continue;
> mutate_name(new_name, &new_len);
>
Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
Also, here are some commands that reproduce e2fsck getting stuck (usually; it's
not guaranteed):
mkfs.ext4 -F -O encrypt /dev/vdc
mount /vdc
mkdir /vdc/edir
echo | e4crypt add_key /vdc/edir
cd /vdc/edir
for b in $(seq -f "aaaabbbbcccc%04.0feeeeffffgggghhhh" 64); do
seq -f "${b}%04.0f" 32
done | xargs touch
cd /
umount /vdc
e2fsck -f -D /dev/vdc
It uses some different prefixes to try to get an '\0' in the first 16 bytes,
then for each one tries some different suffixes. It seems what was happening is
that when a "duplicate" was detected, mutate_name() only changed the part after
the '\0', so it remained a "duplicate" and it looped endlessly.
Eric
