On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 09:35:35AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:09:25PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The AGF verifier does not check that the AGF length field is within > > known good bounds. This has never been checked by runtime kernel > > code (i.e. the lack of verification goes back to 1993) yet we assume > > in many places that it is correct and verify other metdata against > > it. > > > > Add length verification to the AGF verifier. The length of the AGF > > must be equal to the size of the AG specified in the superblock, > > unless it is the last AG in the filesystem. In that case, it must be > > less than or equal to sb->sb_agblocks and greater than > > XFS_MIN_AG_BLOCKS, which is the smallest AG a growfs operation will > > allow to exist. > > > > This requires a bit of rework of the verifier function. We want to > > verify metadata before we use it to verify other metadata. Hence > > we need to verify the AGF sequence numbers before using them to > > verify the length of the AGF. Then we can verify the AGF length > > before we verify AGFL fields. Then we can verifier other fields that > > are bounds limited by the AGF length. > > > > And, finally, by calculating agf_length only once into a local > > variable, we can collapse repeated "if (xfs_has_foo() &&" > > conditionaly checks into single checks. This makes the code much > > easier to follow as all the checks for a given feature are obviously > > in the same place. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Still looks good to me. New question: Do we need to validate agi_length > in the AGI verifier too? I'm on the fence about that after the audit I did. It's only used for bounds checking in one place in xfs_ialloc_ag_alloc() when trying to do exact inode chunk allocation (for sequential inode chunk layout). If it's not correct it doesn't matter (too small will skip exact allocation, too large means exact allocation at EOAG will fail) as we fall back to an "anywhere near target" allocation that doesn't care about agi_length. Hence the agi_length being wrong isn't going to cause fatal errors at the moment, so it wasn't anywhere near as urgent to "fix" because the code isn't actually broken right now... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
