From: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@xxxxxxxxx> commit c36a71b4e35ab35340facdd6964a00956b9fef0a upstream. If eh->eh_max is 0, EXT_MAX_EXTENT/INDEX would evaluate to unsigned (-1) resulting in illegal memory accesses. Although there is no consistent repro, we see that generic/019 sometimes crashes because of this bug. Ran gce-xfstests smoke and verified that there were no regressions. Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@xxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200421023959.20879-2-harshadshirwadkar@xxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/ext4/ext4_extents.h | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- a/fs/ext4/ext4_extents.h +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_extents.h @@ -169,10 +169,13 @@ struct ext4_ext_path { (EXT_FIRST_EXTENT((__hdr__)) + le16_to_cpu((__hdr__)->eh_entries) - 1) #define EXT_LAST_INDEX(__hdr__) \ (EXT_FIRST_INDEX((__hdr__)) + le16_to_cpu((__hdr__)->eh_entries) - 1) -#define EXT_MAX_EXTENT(__hdr__) \ - (EXT_FIRST_EXTENT((__hdr__)) + le16_to_cpu((__hdr__)->eh_max) - 1) +#define EXT_MAX_EXTENT(__hdr__) \ + ((le16_to_cpu((__hdr__)->eh_max)) ? \ + ((EXT_FIRST_EXTENT((__hdr__)) + le16_to_cpu((__hdr__)->eh_max) - 1)) \ + : 0) #define EXT_MAX_INDEX(__hdr__) \ - (EXT_FIRST_INDEX((__hdr__)) + le16_to_cpu((__hdr__)->eh_max) - 1) + ((le16_to_cpu((__hdr__)->eh_max)) ? \ + ((EXT_FIRST_INDEX((__hdr__)) + le16_to_cpu((__hdr__)->eh_max) - 1)) : 0) static inline struct ext4_extent_header *ext_inode_hdr(struct inode *inode) {
