[PATCH v2 0/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Fix issues seen while deleting xattr inode(s)

[PATCH v2 0/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Fix issues seen while deleting xattr inode(s)

[Bhupesh]

Changes since v1:
----------------
- v1 can be seen here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1dddb237-1460-8122-7caf-f0acd7c91b5c@igalia.com/T/
- As suggested by Cascardo while reviewing v1, there are two
  patches in v2:
  [PATCH 1/2] Ignores xattr entries past the end entry.
  [PATCH 2/2] Hold 'EXT4_I(inode)->xattr_sem' semaphore while deleting the inode.

Bhupesh (2):
  fs/ext4/xattr: Ignore xattrs past end
  fs/ext4/xattr: Check for 'xattr_sem' inside 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode'

 fs/ext4/xattr.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

-- 
2.38.1

[PATCH v2 1/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Ignore xattrs past end

[Bhupesh]

Once inside 'ext4_xattr_inode_dec_ref_all' we should
ignore xattrs entries past the 'end' entry.

This fixes the following KASAN reported issue:

==================================================================
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in ext4_xattr_inode_dec_ref_all+0xb8c/0xe90
Read of size 4 at addr ffff888012c120c4 by task repro/2065

CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2065 Comm: repro Not tainted 6.13.0-rc2+ #11
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
 <TASK>
 dump_stack_lvl+0x1fd/0x300
 ? tcp_gro_dev_warn+0x260/0x260
 ? _printk+0xc0/0x100
 ? read_lock_is_recursive+0x10/0x10
 ? irq_work_queue+0x72/0xf0
 ? __virt_addr_valid+0x17b/0x4b0
 print_address_description+0x78/0x390
 print_report+0x107/0x1f0
 ? __virt_addr_valid+0x17b/0x4b0
 ? __virt_addr_valid+0x3ff/0x4b0
 ? __phys_addr+0xb5/0x160
 ? ext4_xattr_inode_dec_ref_all+0xb8c/0xe90
 kasan_report+0xcc/0x100
 ? ext4_xattr_inode_dec_ref_all+0xb8c/0xe90
 ext4_xattr_inode_dec_ref_all+0xb8c/0xe90
 ? ext4_xattr_delete_inode+0xd30/0xd30
 ? __ext4_journal_ensure_credits+0x5f0/0x5f0
 ? __ext4_journal_ensure_credits+0x2b/0x5f0
 ? inode_update_timestamps+0x410/0x410
 ext4_xattr_delete_inode+0xb64/0xd30
 ? ext4_truncate+0xb70/0xdc0
 ? ext4_expand_extra_isize_ea+0x1d20/0x1d20
 ? __ext4_mark_inode_dirty+0x670/0x670
 ? ext4_journal_check_start+0x16f/0x240
 ? ext4_inode_is_fast_symlink+0x2f2/0x3a0
 ext4_evict_inode+0xc8c/0xff0
 ? ext4_inode_is_fast_symlink+0x3a0/0x3a0
 ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x53/0x8a0
 ? ext4_inode_is_fast_symlink+0x3a0/0x3a0
 evict+0x4ac/0x950
 ? proc_nr_inodes+0x310/0x310
 ? trace_ext4_drop_inode+0xa2/0x220
 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x1a/0x30
 ? iput+0x4cb/0x7e0
 do_unlinkat+0x495/0x7c0
 ? try_break_deleg+0x120/0x120
 ? 0xffffffff81000000
 ? __check_object_size+0x15a/0x210
 ? strncpy_from_user+0x13e/0x250
 ? getname_flags+0x1dc/0x530
 __x64_sys_unlinkat+0xc8/0xf0
 do_syscall_64+0x65/0x110
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x67/0x6f
RIP: 0033:0x434ffd
Code: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 00 f3 0f 1e fa 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 8
RSP: 002b:00007ffc50fa7b28 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000107
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffc50fa7e18 RCX: 0000000000434ffd
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000020000240 RDI: 0000000000000005
RBP: 00007ffc50fa7be0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000001
R13: 00007ffc50fa7e08 R14: 00000000004bbf30 R15: 0000000000000001
 </TASK>

The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff888012c12000
 which belongs to the cache filp of size 360
The buggy address is located 196 bytes inside of
 freed 360-byte region [ffff888012c12000, ffff888012c12168)

The buggy address belongs to the physical page:
page: refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x12c12
head: order:1 mapcount:0 entire_mapcount:0 nr_pages_mapped:0 pincount:0
flags: 0x40(head|node=0|zone=0)
page_type: f5(slab)
raw: 0000000000000040 ffff888000ad7640 ffffea0000497a00 dead000000000004
raw: 0000000000000000 0000000000100010 00000001f5000000 0000000000000000
head: 0000000000000040 ffff888000ad7640 ffffea0000497a00 dead000000000004
head: 0000000000000000 0000000000100010 00000001f5000000 0000000000000000
head: 0000000000000001 ffffea00004b0481 ffffffffffffffff 0000000000000000
head: 0000000000000002 0000000000000000 00000000ffffffff 0000000000000000
page dumped because: kasan: bad access detected

Memory state around the buggy address:
 ffff888012c11f80: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
 ffff888012c12000: fa fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
> ffff888012c12080: fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
                                           ^
 ffff888012c12100: fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fc fc fc
 ffff888012c12180: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc
==================================================================

Reported-by: syzbot+b244bda78289b00204ed@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b244bda78289b00204ed
Suggested-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@igalia.com>
Signed-off-by: Bhupesh <bhupesh@igalia.com>
---
 fs/ext4/xattr.c | 11 ++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/xattr.c b/fs/ext4/xattr.c
index 7647e9f6e190..6ff94cdf1515 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/xattr.c
@@ -1176,15 +1176,24 @@ ext4_xattr_inode_dec_ref_all(handle_t *handle, struct inode *parent,
 {
 	struct inode *ea_inode;
 	struct ext4_xattr_entry *entry;
+	struct ext4_iloc iloc;
 	bool dirty = false;
 	unsigned int ea_ino;
 	int err;
 	int credits;
+	void *end;
+
+	if (block_csum)
+		end = (void *)bh->b_data + bh->b_size;
+	else {
+		ext4_get_inode_loc(parent, &iloc);
+		end = (void *)ext4_raw_inode(&iloc) + EXT4_SB(parent->i_sb)->s_inode_size;
+	}
 
 	/* One credit for dec ref on ea_inode, one for orphan list addition, */
 	credits = 2 + extra_credits;
 
-	for (entry = first; !IS_LAST_ENTRY(entry);
+	for (entry = first; (void *)entry < end && !IS_LAST_ENTRY(entry);
 	     entry = EXT4_XATTR_NEXT(entry)) {
 		if (!entry->e_value_inum)
 			continue;
-- 
2.38.1

[PATCH v2 2/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Check for 'xattr_sem' inside 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode'

[Bhupesh]

Once we are inside the 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode' function and trying
to delete the inode, the 'xattr_sem' should be unlocked.

We need trylock here to avoid false-positive warning from lockdep
about reclaim circular dependency.

This makes the 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode' implementation mimic the
existing 'ext2_xattr_delete_inode' implementation and thus avoid
similar lockdep issues while deleting inodes.

Signed-off-by: Bhupesh <bhupesh@igalia.com>
---
 fs/ext4/xattr.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/xattr.c b/fs/ext4/xattr.c
index 6ff94cdf1515..b98267c09b00 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/xattr.c
@@ -2935,7 +2935,20 @@ int ext4_xattr_delete_inode(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
 	struct ext4_iloc iloc = { .bh = NULL };
 	struct ext4_xattr_entry *entry;
 	struct inode *ea_inode;
-	int error;
+	int error = 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * We are the only ones holding inode reference. The xattr_sem should
+	 * better be unlocked! We could as well just not acquire xattr_sem at
+	 * all but this makes the code more futureproof. OTOH we need trylock
+	 * here to avoid false-positive warning from lockdep about reclaim
+	 * circular dependency.
+	 */
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!down_write_trylock(&EXT4_I(inode)->xattr_sem)))
+		return error;
+
+	if (!EXT4_I(inode)->i_file_acl)
+		goto cleanup;
 
 	error = ext4_journal_ensure_credits(handle, extra_credits,
 			ext4_free_metadata_revoke_credits(inode->i_sb, 1));
@@ -3024,6 +3037,7 @@ int ext4_xattr_delete_inode(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
 cleanup:
 	brelse(iloc.bh);
 	brelse(bh);
+	up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->xattr_sem);
 	return error;
 }
 
-- 
2.38.1

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Check for 'xattr_sem' inside 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode'

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 01:57:51PM +0530, Bhupesh wrote:
> Once we are inside the 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode' function and trying
> to delete the inode, the 'xattr_sem' should be unlocked.
> 
> We need trylock here to avoid false-positive warning from lockdep
> about reclaim circular dependency.
> 
> This makes the 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode' implementation mimic the
> existing 'ext2_xattr_delete_inode' implementation and thus avoid
> similar lockdep issues while deleting inodes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh <bhupesh@igalia.com>

This patch is causing a failure of test ext4/026, and also exposed a
bug in e2fsprogs[1].  With the e2fsprogs bug fixed, the file system
corruption which is induced by ext4/026 is (when running e2fsck -fn on
SCRATCH_DEV):

Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
Regular filesystem inode 14 has EA_INODE flag set. Clear? no

Unattached inode 14
Connect to /lost+found? no

Pass 5: Checking group summary information

/tmp/kvm-xfstests-tytso/vdc.img: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors **********

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/20250317144526.990271-1-tytso@mit.edu

So what appears to be happening is this patch is resulting in ext4/026
failing to clean up a no-longer-used EA inode, which is unfortunate.

Without the e2fsorigs bug fix, ext4/026 will fail but the error
message will be much less edifying:

e2fsck 1.47.2 (1-Jan-2025)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
ext2fs_write_inode: Attempt to write to filesystem opened read-only while writing inode 14 in pass4
e2fsck: aborted

So I'm going to drop this patch (2/2) from the ext4 tree, but I'm
going to keep patch 1/2 from this series, since it is fixing a real
bug.  I presume that without this patch, the syzbot reproducer will
trigger a false lockdep warning, but we can fix that later.

Thanks,

					- Ted

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Fix issues seen while deleting xattr inode(s)

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:57:49 +0530, Bhupesh wrote:
> Changes since v1:
> ----------------
> - v1 can be seen here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1dddb237-1460-8122-7caf-f0acd7c91b5c@igalia.com/T/
> - As suggested by Cascardo while reviewing v1, there are two
>   patches in v2:
>   [PATCH 1/2] Ignores xattr entries past the end entry.
>   [PATCH 2/2] Hold 'EXT4_I(inode)->xattr_sem' semaphore while deleting the inode.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Ignore xattrs past end
      commit: c8e008b60492cf6fd31ef127aea6d02fd3d314cd
[2/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Check for 'xattr_sem' inside 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode'
      (dropped because it breaks ext4/026)

Best regards,
-- 
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fs/ext4/xattr: Check for 'xattr_sem' inside 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode'

[Bhupesh Sharma]

Hi Ted,

On 3/17/25 8:47 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 01:57:51PM +0530, Bhupesh wrote:
>> Once we are inside the 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode' function and trying
>> to delete the inode, the 'xattr_sem' should be unlocked.
>>
>> We need trylock here to avoid false-positive warning from lockdep
>> about reclaim circular dependency.
>>
>> This makes the 'ext4_xattr_delete_inode' implementation mimic the
>> existing 'ext2_xattr_delete_inode' implementation and thus avoid
>> similar lockdep issues while deleting inodes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh <bhupesh@igalia.com>
> This patch is causing a failure of test ext4/026, and also exposed a
> bug in e2fsprogs[1].  With the e2fsprogs bug fixed, the file system
> corruption which is induced by ext4/026 is (when running e2fsck -fn on
> SCRATCH_DEV):
>
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Pass 2: Checking directory structure
> Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
> Pass 4: Checking reference counts
> Regular filesystem inode 14 has EA_INODE flag set. Clear? no
>
> Unattached inode 14
> Connect to /lost+found? no
>
> Pass 5: Checking group summary information
>
> /tmp/kvm-xfstests-tytso/vdc.img: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors **********
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20250317144526.990271-1-tytso@mit.edu
>
> So what appears to be happening is this patch is resulting in ext4/026
> failing to clean up a no-longer-used EA inode, which is unfortunate.
>
> Without the e2fsorigs bug fix, ext4/026 will fail but the error
> message will be much less edifying:
>
> e2fsck 1.47.2 (1-Jan-2025)
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Pass 2: Checking directory structure
> Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
> Pass 4: Checking reference counts
> ext2fs_write_inode: Attempt to write to filesystem opened read-only while writing inode 14 in pass4
> e2fsck: aborted
>
> So I'm going to drop this patch (2/2) from the ext4 tree, but I'm
> going to keep patch 1/2 from this series, since it is fixing a real
> bug.  I presume that without this patch, the syzbot reproducer will
> trigger a false lockdep warning, but we can fix that later.

Sure, many thanks for your help.

Regards,
Bhupesh