On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:48:17PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:26:11AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:37:11AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Instead of assuming that PAGE_SHIFT is always higher than the blocklog,
> > > make the calculation generic so that page cache count can be calculated
> > > correctly for LBS.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 6 +++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > > index aabb25dc3efa..bfbaaecaf668 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> > > @@ -133,9 +133,13 @@ xfs_sb_validate_fsb_count(
> > > {
> > > ASSERT(PAGE_SHIFT >= sbp->sb_blocklog);
> > > ASSERT(sbp->sb_blocklog >= BBSHIFT);
> > > + unsigned long mapping_count;
> >
> > Nit: indenting
> >
> > unsigned long mapping_count;
>
> I will add this in the next revision.
> >
> > > + uint64_t bytes = nblocks << sbp->sb_blocklog;
> >
> > What happens if someone feeds us a garbage fs with sb_blocklog > 64?
> > Or did we check that previously, so an overflow isn't possible?
> >
> I was thinking of possibility of an overflow but at the moment the
> blocklog is capped at 16 (65536 bytes) right? mkfs refuses any block
> sizes more than 64k. And we have check for this in xfs_validate_sb_common()
> in the kernel, which will catch it before this happens?
The sb_blocklog is checked in the superblock verifier when we first read in the
superblock:
sbp->sb_blocksize < XFS_MIN_BLOCKSIZE ||
sbp->sb_blocksize > XFS_MAX_BLOCKSIZE ||
sbp->sb_blocklog < XFS_MIN_BLOCKSIZE_LOG ||
sbp->sb_blocklog > XFS_MAX_BLOCKSIZE_LOG ||
sbp->sb_blocksize != (1 << sbp->sb_blocklog) ||
#define XFS_MAX_BLOCKSIZE_LOG 16
However, we pass mp->m_sb.sb_dblocks or m_sb.sb_rblocks to this
function, and they are validated by the same verifier as invalid
if:
sbp->sb_dblocks > XFS_MAX_DBLOCKS(sbp)
#define XFS_MAX_DBLOCKS(s) ((xfs_rfsblock_t)(s)->sb_agcount *
(s)->sb_agblocks)
Which means as long as someone can corrupt some combination of
sb_dblocks, sb_agcount and sb_agblocks that allows sb_dblocks to be
greater than 2^48 on a 64kB fsb fs, then that the above code:
uint64_t bytes = nblocks << sbp->sb_blocklog;
will overflow.
I also suspect that we can feed a huge rtdev to this new code
and have it overflow without needing to corrupt the superblock in
any way....
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
