3.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit d8fd150fe3935e1692bf57c66691e17409ebb9c1 upstream.
The range check for b-tree level parameter in nilfs_btree_root_broken()
is wrong; it accepts the case of "level == NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX" even
though the level is limited to values in the range of 0 to
(NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX - 1).
Since the level parameter is read from storage device and used to index
nilfs_btree_path array whose element count is NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX, it
can cause memory overrun during btree operations if the boundary value
is set to the level parameter on device.
This fixes the broken sanity check and adds a comment to clarify that
the upper bound NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX is exclusive.
Signed-off-by: Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nilfs2/btree.c | 2 +-
include/linux/nilfs2_fs.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/nilfs2/btree.c
+++ b/fs/nilfs2/btree.c
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ static int nilfs_btree_root_broken(const
nchildren = nilfs_btree_node_get_nchildren(node);
if (unlikely(level < NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_NODE_MIN ||
- level > NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX ||
+ level >= NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX ||
nchildren < 0 ||
nchildren > NILFS_BTREE_ROOT_NCHILDREN_MAX)) {
pr_crit("NILFS: bad btree root (inode number=%lu): level = %d, flags = 0x%x, nchildren = %d\n",
--- a/include/linux/nilfs2_fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/nilfs2_fs.h
@@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ struct nilfs_btree_node {
/* level */
#define NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_DATA 0
#define NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_NODE_MIN (NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_DATA + 1)
-#define NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX 14
+#define NILFS_BTREE_LEVEL_MAX 14 /* Max level (exclusive) */
/**
* struct nilfs_palloc_group_desc - block group descriptor
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html