* [PATCH] fs/ntfs3: reject evcn == U64_MAX in mi_enum_attr()
@ 2026-04-24 2:46 Zhan Xusheng
2026-04-24 9:20 ` David Laight
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-24 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Komarov; +Cc: linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng
In mi_enum_attr(), the start/end VCN validation for non-resident
attributes is:
if (svcn > evcn + 1) goto out;
When on-disk evcn is 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF (U64_MAX), the addition
evcn + 1 wraps to 0, and the check becomes "if (svcn > 0)" which
incorrectly accepts svcn == 0 with evcn == U64_MAX.
mi_enum_attr() is the core attribute iterator used throughout ntfs3.
Allowing this malformed VCN range to pass the initial validation can
feed a bogus 64-bit extent span into downstream code that computes
evcn + 1 - svcn (producing 0 due to wrap) or uses evcn as a loop
bound.
A crafted NTFS image can trigger this on mount or file access.
Fix by explicitly rejecting evcn == U64_MAX before the addition.
Fixes: 013ff63b6494 ("fs/ntfs3: Add more attributes checks in mi_enum_attr()")
Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com>
---
fs/ntfs3/record.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/record.c b/fs/ntfs3/record.c
index 32bdb034c2a3..2ff28bfbedad 100644
--- a/fs/ntfs3/record.c
+++ b/fs/ntfs3/record.c
@@ -311,7 +311,8 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi,
goto out;
/* Check start/end vcn. */
- if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1)
+ if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) == (u64)-1 ||
+ le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1)
goto out;
data_size = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.data_size);
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] fs/ntfs3: reject evcn == U64_MAX in mi_enum_attr() 2026-04-24 2:46 [PATCH] fs/ntfs3: reject evcn == U64_MAX in mi_enum_attr() Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-24 9:20 ` David Laight 2026-04-24 13:20 ` Zhan Xusheng 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: David Laight @ 2026-04-24 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhan Xusheng; +Cc: Konstantin Komarov, linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:46:19 +0800 Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com> wrote: > In mi_enum_attr(), the start/end VCN validation for non-resident > attributes is: > > if (svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; > > When on-disk evcn is 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF (U64_MAX), the addition > evcn + 1 wraps to 0, and the check becomes "if (svcn > 0)" which > incorrectly accepts svcn == 0 with evcn == U64_MAX. > > mi_enum_attr() is the core attribute iterator used throughout ntfs3. > Allowing this malformed VCN range to pass the initial validation can > feed a bogus 64-bit extent span into downstream code that computes > evcn + 1 - svcn (producing 0 due to wrap) or uses evcn as a loop > bound. > > A crafted NTFS image can trigger this on mount or file access. > > Fix by explicitly rejecting evcn == U64_MAX before the addition. > > Fixes: 013ff63b6494 ("fs/ntfs3: Add more attributes checks in mi_enum_attr()") > Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> > --- > fs/ntfs3/record.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/record.c b/fs/ntfs3/record.c > index 32bdb034c2a3..2ff28bfbedad 100644 > --- a/fs/ntfs3/record.c > +++ b/fs/ntfs3/record.c > @@ -311,7 +311,8 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, > goto out; > > /* Check start/end vcn. */ > - if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1) > + if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) == (u64)-1 || > + le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1) Isn't that just: if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) >= le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn)) David > goto out; > > data_size = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.data_size); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs/ntfs3: reject evcn == U64_MAX in mi_enum_attr() 2026-04-24 9:20 ` David Laight @ 2026-04-24 13:20 ` Zhan Xusheng 2026-04-24 15:15 ` David Laight 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-24 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Laight; +Cc: Konstantin Komarov, linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng Hi David, That would reject the svcn == evcn case, which represents a single-cluster extent (e.g. svcn=0, evcn=0) and is currently treated as valid. The original check allows svcn == evcn + 1 (empty range), so the condition is strictly "greater than", not "greater than or equal". The issue here is the overflow of (evcn + 1) when evcn == U64_MAX, which turns the check into "svcn > 0" and incorrectly allows svcn == 0. My patch preserves the existing semantics and only adds the missing U64_MAX guard. Thanks, Zhan Xusheng ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs/ntfs3: reject evcn == U64_MAX in mi_enum_attr() 2026-04-24 13:20 ` Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-24 15:15 ` David Laight 2026-04-25 2:03 ` Zhan Xusheng 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: David Laight @ 2026-04-24 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhan Xusheng; +Cc: Konstantin Komarov, linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 21:20:31 +0800 Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > That would reject the svcn == evcn case, which represents a > single-cluster extent (e.g. svcn=0, evcn=0) and is currently > treated as valid. Slight brain fade.. > > The original check allows svcn == evcn + 1 (empty range), so the > condition is strictly "greater than", not "greater than or equal". > > The issue here is the overflow of (evcn + 1) when evcn == U64_MAX, > which turns the check into "svcn > 0" and incorrectly allows > svcn == 0. Is that analysis correct? with the current code: If evcn is 2 then everything except 0, 1, 2 and 3 are errors. If evcn is -3 then only -1 is an error. If evcn is -2 no values are errors. If evcn is -1 then all svcn values except 0 are errors. Clearly this doesn't make sense if evcn is -1. But there isn't an obvious reason why svcn == -4, evcn == -1 shouldn't be a valid range. (There might be a sanity upper limit is evcn for other reasons.) David > > My patch preserves the existing semantics and only adds the > missing U64_MAX guard. > > Thanks, > Zhan Xusheng > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs/ntfs3: reject evcn == U64_MAX in mi_enum_attr() 2026-04-24 15:15 ` David Laight @ 2026-04-25 2:03 ` Zhan Xusheng 2026-04-25 10:42 ` David Laight 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-25 2:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Laight; +Cc: Konstantin Komarov, linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 16:15:58 +0100 David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com> wrote: > Is that analysis correct? with the current code: > If evcn is 2 then everything except 0, 1, 2 and 3 are errors. > If evcn is -3 then only -1 is an error. > If evcn is -2 no values are errors. > If evcn is -1 then all svcn values except 0 are errors. > > Clearly this doesn't make sense if evcn is -1. > > But there isn't an obvious reason why svcn == -4, evcn == -1 > shouldn't be a valid range. > (There might be a sanity upper limit is evcn for other reasons.) Thanks for looking into this, David. The on-disk svcn/evcn fields are __le64 (ntfs.h:339-340), and ntfs3 uses them as u64 throughout -- the internal VCN type CLST is typedef'd to u32 or u64 (ntfs.h:73-78). NTFS VCNs are unsigned by definition; there is no such thing as a negative VCN. So the signed interpretation doesn't apply here. In the unsigned domain, 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF is simply the maximum u64 value, not -1. The only issue is the arithmetic wrap: (u64)0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF + 1 == 0. Regarding a separate upper bound: yes, evcn is also bounded by the volume's total cluster count, but mi_enum_attr() validates on-disk MFT records before the superblock fields are necessarily available to every caller, so the U64_MAX check is the minimal fix for the overflow. Thanks, Zhan Xusheng ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs/ntfs3: reject evcn == U64_MAX in mi_enum_attr() 2026-04-25 2:03 ` Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-25 10:42 ` David Laight 2026-04-27 3:47 ` [PATCH v2] fs/ntfs3: reject invalid evcn == (u64)-1 " Zhan Xusheng 2026-04-27 3:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Zhan Xusheng 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: David Laight @ 2026-04-25 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zhan Xusheng; +Cc: Konstantin Komarov, linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 10:03:09 +0800 Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 16:15:58 +0100 > David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is that analysis correct? with the current code: > > If evcn is 2 then everything except 0, 1, 2 and 3 are errors. > > If evcn is -3 then only -1 is an error. > > If evcn is -2 no values are errors. > > If evcn is -1 then all svcn values except 0 are errors. > > > > Clearly this doesn't make sense if evcn is -1. > > > > But there isn't an obvious reason why svcn == -4, evcn == -1 > > shouldn't be a valid range. > > (There might be a sanity upper limit is evcn for other reasons.) > > Thanks for looking into this, David. > > The on-disk svcn/evcn fields are __le64 (ntfs.h:339-340), and ntfs3 > uses them as u64 throughout -- the internal VCN type CLST is typedef'd > to u32 or u64 (ntfs.h:73-78). NTFS VCNs are unsigned by definition; > there is no such thing as a negative VCN. I was just writing negative values as shorthand for unsigned ones just below the ~0ull. Perhaps I should have added the (u64) cast. > So the signed interpretation doesn't apply here. In the unsigned > domain, 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF is simply the maximum u64 value, not -1. > The only issue is the arithmetic wrap: (u64)0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF + 1 == 0. > > Regarding a separate upper bound: yes, evcn is also bounded by the > volume's total cluster count, but mi_enum_attr() validates on-disk > MFT records before the superblock fields are necessarily available > to every caller, so the U64_MAX check is the minimal fix for the > overflow. True - but your comment is wrong. And if the code was looping through the range, I suspect there are other values that would also lead to is looping ~forever. If the numbers are relative the to physical media then the maximum size is much smaller. Basically you can't have 2^64 of anything - there aren't enough atoms. So you can use a much smaller 'sanity check' - limit possibly earlier on. David > > Thanks, > Zhan Xusheng ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] fs/ntfs3: reject invalid evcn == (u64)-1 in mi_enum_attr() 2026-04-25 10:42 ` David Laight @ 2026-04-27 3:47 ` Zhan Xusheng 2026-04-27 3:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Zhan Xusheng 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-27 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Laight; +Cc: Konstantin Komarov, linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng In mi_enum_attr(), the start/end VCN validation for non-resident attributes is: if (svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; This relies on evcn + 1 arithmetic, which overflows when evcn is (u64)-1 and wraps to 0, breaking the intended range check. In that case, malformed on-disk metadata such as: svcn == 0, evcn == (u64)-1 may incorrectly pass validation. VCN (virtual cluster number) represents cluster indices within a NTFS volume and is bounded by the physical size of the filesystem. Therefore, values near or equal to (u64)-1 are not valid on-disk VCN values and should be treated as malformed metadata. Reject this case to prevent arithmetic overflow while preserving the original semantics of allowing svcn <= evcn + 1. Fixes: 013ff63b6494 ("fs/ntfs3: Add more attributes checks in mi_enum_attr()") Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> --- fs/ntfs3/record.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/record.c b/fs/ntfs3/record.c index 32bdb034c2a3..ad752bebb66c 100644 --- a/fs/ntfs3/record.c +++ b/fs/ntfs3/record.c @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, u32 used = le32_to_cpu(rec->used); u32 t32, off, asize, prev_type; u16 t16; - u64 data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; + u64 svcn, evcn, data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; if (!attr) { u32 total = le32_to_cpu(rec->total); @@ -311,7 +311,10 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, goto out; /* Check start/end vcn. */ - if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1) + svcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn); + evcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn); + /* evcn == (u64)-1 is invalid on-disk VCN */ + if (evcn == (u64)-1 || svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; data_size = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.data_size); -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3] fs/ntfs3: reject invalid evcn == (u64)-1 in mi_enum_attr() 2026-04-25 10:42 ` David Laight 2026-04-27 3:47 ` [PATCH v2] fs/ntfs3: reject invalid evcn == (u64)-1 " Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-27 3:50 ` Zhan Xusheng 2026-05-15 8:23 ` [PATCH v4] fs/ntfs3: reject out-of-range evcn " fra-build 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-04-27 3:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Laight; +Cc: Konstantin Komarov, linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng In mi_enum_attr(), the start/end VCN validation for non-resident attributes is: if (svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; This relies on evcn + 1 arithmetic, which overflows when evcn is (u64)-1 and wraps to 0, breaking the intended range check. In that case, malformed on-disk metadata such as: svcn == 0, evcn == (u64)-1 may incorrectly pass validation. VCN (virtual cluster number) represents cluster indices within a NTFS volume and is bounded by the physical size of the filesystem. Therefore, values near or equal to (u64)-1 are not valid on-disk VCN values and should be treated as malformed metadata. Reject this case to prevent arithmetic overflow while preserving the original semantics of allowing svcn <= evcn + 1. Fixes: 013ff63b6494 ("fs/ntfs3: Add more attributes checks in mi_enum_attr()") Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> --- fs/ntfs3/record.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/record.c b/fs/ntfs3/record.c index 32bdb034c2a3..ad752bebb66c 100644 --- a/fs/ntfs3/record.c +++ b/fs/ntfs3/record.c @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, u32 used = le32_to_cpu(rec->used); u32 t32, off, asize, prev_type; u16 t16; - u64 data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; + u64 svcn, evcn, data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; if (!attr) { u32 total = le32_to_cpu(rec->total); @@ -311,7 +311,10 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, goto out; /* Check start/end vcn. */ - if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1) + svcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn); + evcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn); + /* evcn == (u64)-1 is invalid on-disk VCN */ + if (evcn == (u64)-1 || svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; data_size = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.data_size); -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v4] fs/ntfs3: reject out-of-range evcn in mi_enum_attr() 2026-04-27 3:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-05-15 8:23 ` fra-build 2026-05-15 9:28 ` David Laight 2026-05-28 14:03 ` Konstantin Komarov 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: fra-build @ 2026-05-15 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: almaz.alexandrovich, david.laight.linux; +Cc: ntfs3, linux-kernel, zhanxusheng From: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> In mi_enum_attr(), the start/end VCN validation for non-resident attributes is: if (svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; When evcn is U64_MAX the "evcn + 1" expression wraps to 0 and any svcn passes the check. For evcn values close to U64_MAX (but not equal to it) the right-hand side is still a meaningless near-wrap upper bound, so a malformed on-disk attribute with svcn == 0 and evcn near U64_MAX can pass mi_enum_attr() unrejected. VCN (virtual cluster number) is a cluster index, so any valid evcn is bounded by the volume's total cluster count, which ntfs3 holds in sbi->used.bitmap.nbits (set up in ntfs_init_from_boot() before any caller of mi_enum_attr() runs). Reject evcn values that fall outside this range; this rejects all out-of-range evcn values, not just U64_MAX, and as a side effect prevents the "evcn + 1" wraparound entirely. Fixes: 013ff63b6494 ("fs/ntfs3: Add more attributes checks in mi_enum_attr()") Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> --- fs/ntfs3/record.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/record.c b/fs/ntfs3/record.c index 32bdb034c2a3..4379446bcf96 100644 --- a/fs/ntfs3/record.c +++ b/fs/ntfs3/record.c @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, u32 used = le32_to_cpu(rec->used); u32 t32, off, asize, prev_type; u16 t16; - u64 data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; + u64 svcn, evcn, data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; if (!attr) { u32 total = le32_to_cpu(rec->total); @@ -310,8 +310,17 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, if (t32 && le16_to_cpu(attr->name_off) + t32 > t16) goto out; - /* Check start/end vcn. */ - if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1) + /* + * Check start/end vcn. evcn must be a valid cluster index, i.e. + * less than the volume's total cluster count (sbi->used.bitmap.nbits); + * rejecting it here also keeps "svcn > evcn + 1" meaningful, since + * evcn == U64_MAX would wrap "evcn + 1" to 0. svcn does not need + * its own bound: once evcn < nbits, "svcn > evcn + 1" implies + * svcn <= nbits. + */ + svcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn); + evcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn); + if (evcn >= mi->sbi->used.bitmap.nbits || svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; data_size = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.data_size); -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] fs/ntfs3: reject out-of-range evcn in mi_enum_attr() 2026-05-15 8:23 ` [PATCH v4] fs/ntfs3: reject out-of-range evcn " fra-build @ 2026-05-15 9:28 ` David Laight 2026-05-28 14:03 ` Konstantin Komarov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: David Laight @ 2026-05-15 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: fra-build; +Cc: almaz.alexandrovich, ntfs3, linux-kernel, zhanxusheng On Fri, 15 May 2026 16:23:05 +0800 fra-build <zhanxusheng1024@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> > > In mi_enum_attr(), the start/end VCN validation for non-resident > attributes is: > > if (svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; > > When evcn is U64_MAX the "evcn + 1" expression wraps to 0 and any > svcn passes the check. For evcn values close to U64_MAX (but not > equal to it) the right-hand side is still a meaningless near-wrap > upper bound, so a malformed on-disk attribute with svcn == 0 and > evcn near U64_MAX can pass mi_enum_attr() unrejected. > > VCN (virtual cluster number) is a cluster index, so any valid evcn > is bounded by the volume's total cluster count, which ntfs3 holds > in sbi->used.bitmap.nbits (set up in ntfs_init_from_boot() before > any caller of mi_enum_attr() runs). Reject evcn values that fall > outside this range; this rejects all out-of-range evcn values, > not just U64_MAX, and as a side effect prevents the "evcn + 1" > wraparound entirely. > > Fixes: 013ff63b6494 ("fs/ntfs3: Add more attributes checks in mi_enum_attr()") > Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> Reviewed-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com> > --- > fs/ntfs3/record.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/record.c b/fs/ntfs3/record.c > index 32bdb034c2a3..4379446bcf96 100644 > --- a/fs/ntfs3/record.c > +++ b/fs/ntfs3/record.c > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, > u32 used = le32_to_cpu(rec->used); > u32 t32, off, asize, prev_type; > u16 t16; > - u64 data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; > + u64 svcn, evcn, data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; > > if (!attr) { > u32 total = le32_to_cpu(rec->total); > @@ -310,8 +310,17 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, > if (t32 && le16_to_cpu(attr->name_off) + t32 > t16) > goto out; > > - /* Check start/end vcn. */ > - if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1) > + /* > + * Check start/end vcn. evcn must be a valid cluster index, i.e. > + * less than the volume's total cluster count (sbi->used.bitmap.nbits); > + * rejecting it here also keeps "svcn > evcn + 1" meaningful, since > + * evcn == U64_MAX would wrap "evcn + 1" to 0. svcn does not need > + * its own bound: once evcn < nbits, "svcn > evcn + 1" implies > + * svcn <= nbits. > + */ > + svcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn); > + evcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn); > + if (evcn >= mi->sbi->used.bitmap.nbits || svcn > evcn + 1) > goto out; > > data_size = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.data_size); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] fs/ntfs3: reject out-of-range evcn in mi_enum_attr() 2026-05-15 8:23 ` [PATCH v4] fs/ntfs3: reject out-of-range evcn " fra-build 2026-05-15 9:28 ` David Laight @ 2026-05-28 14:03 ` Konstantin Komarov 2026-06-24 3:44 ` [PATCH v5] " Zhan Xusheng 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Konstantin Komarov @ 2026-05-28 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: fra-build, david.laight.linux; +Cc: ntfs3, linux-kernel, zhanxusheng On 5/15/26 10:23, fra-build wrote: > From: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> > > In mi_enum_attr(), the start/end VCN validation for non-resident > attributes is: > > if (svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; > > When evcn is U64_MAX the "evcn + 1" expression wraps to 0 and any > svcn passes the check. For evcn values close to U64_MAX (but not > equal to it) the right-hand side is still a meaningless near-wrap > upper bound, so a malformed on-disk attribute with svcn == 0 and > evcn near U64_MAX can pass mi_enum_attr() unrejected. > > VCN (virtual cluster number) is a cluster index, so any valid evcn > is bounded by the volume's total cluster count, which ntfs3 holds > in sbi->used.bitmap.nbits (set up in ntfs_init_from_boot() before > any caller of mi_enum_attr() runs). Reject evcn values that fall > outside this range; this rejects all out-of-range evcn values, > not just U64_MAX, and as a side effect prevents the "evcn + 1" > wraparound entirely. > > Fixes: 013ff63b6494 ("fs/ntfs3: Add more attributes checks in mi_enum_attr()") > Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> > --- > fs/ntfs3/record.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/record.c b/fs/ntfs3/record.c > index 32bdb034c2a3..4379446bcf96 100644 > --- a/fs/ntfs3/record.c > +++ b/fs/ntfs3/record.c > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, > u32 used = le32_to_cpu(rec->used); > u32 t32, off, asize, prev_type; > u16 t16; > - u64 data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; > + u64 svcn, evcn, data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; > > if (!attr) { > u32 total = le32_to_cpu(rec->total); > @@ -310,8 +310,17 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, > if (t32 && le16_to_cpu(attr->name_off) + t32 > t16) > goto out; > > - /* Check start/end vcn. */ > - if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1) > + /* > + * Check start/end vcn. evcn must be a valid cluster index, i.e. > + * less than the volume's total cluster count (sbi->used.bitmap.nbits); > + * rejecting it here also keeps "svcn > evcn + 1" meaningful, since > + * evcn == U64_MAX would wrap "evcn + 1" to 0. svcn does not need > + * its own bound: once evcn < nbits, "svcn > evcn + 1" implies > + * svcn <= nbits. > + */ > + svcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn); > + evcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn); > + if (evcn >= mi->sbi->used.bitmap.nbits || svcn > evcn + 1) > goto out; > > data_size = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.data_size); Hello, This patch doesn't apply as-is - during internal testing it caused a number of failures. I believe the cause is empty non-resident attributes, which are legitimately encoded with svcn=0 and evcn=U64_MAX (a -1 sentinel for no allocated clusters). The new evcn >= sbi->used.bitmap.nbits check rejects those valid attributes. The U64_MAX wraparound you're guarding against is real, but it needs to be handled without rejecting the empty-attribute sentinel. Not applied yet. Thanks. Regards, Konstantin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v5] fs/ntfs3: reject out-of-range evcn in mi_enum_attr() 2026-05-28 14:03 ` Konstantin Komarov @ 2026-06-24 3:44 ` Zhan Xusheng 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Zhan Xusheng @ 2026-06-24 3:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Konstantin Komarov; +Cc: ntfs3, linux-kernel, Zhan Xusheng In mi_enum_attr(), the start/end VCN validation for non-resident attributes is: if (svcn > evcn + 1) goto out; When evcn is U64_MAX the "evcn + 1" expression wraps to 0 and any svcn passes the check. For evcn values close to U64_MAX (but not equal to it) the right-hand side is still a meaningless near-wrap upper bound, so a malformed on-disk attribute with svcn == 0 and evcn near U64_MAX can pass mi_enum_attr() unrejected. VCN (virtual cluster number) is a cluster index, so any valid evcn is bounded by the volume's total cluster count, which ntfs3 holds in sbi->used.bitmap.nbits (set up in ntfs_init_from_boot() before any caller of mi_enum_attr() runs). Reject evcn values that fall outside this range. However, an empty non-resident attribute (no allocated clusters) is legitimately encoded with svcn == 0 and evcn == -1 (U64_MAX), e.g. via attr->nres.evcn = cpu_to_le64((u64)vcn - 1) with vcn == 0. That sentinel must keep passing, so exclude evcn == U64_MAX from the range check. The existing "svcn > evcn + 1" test still tolerates the sentinel ("0 > 0" is false) and continues to require svcn == 0 for it, while the range check rejects every other out-of-range evcn and thereby also defuses the "evcn + 1" wraparound. svcn does not need its own bound: once evcn < nbits, "svcn > evcn + 1" implies svcn <= nbits. Fixes: 013ff63b6494 ("fs/ntfs3: Add more attributes checks in mi_enum_attr()") Signed-off-by: Zhan Xusheng <zhanxusheng@xiaomi.com> --- fs/ntfs3/record.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/record.c b/fs/ntfs3/record.c index 32bdb034c2a3..d6ca4ac35a45 100644 --- a/fs/ntfs3/record.c +++ b/fs/ntfs3/record.c @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, u32 used = le32_to_cpu(rec->used); u32 t32, off, asize, prev_type; u16 t16; - u64 data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; + u64 svcn, evcn, data_size, alloc_size, tot_size; if (!attr) { u32 total = le32_to_cpu(rec->total); @@ -310,8 +310,22 @@ struct ATTRIB *mi_enum_attr(struct ntfs_inode *ni, struct mft_inode *mi, if (t32 && le16_to_cpu(attr->name_off) + t32 > t16) goto out; - /* Check start/end vcn. */ - if (le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn) > le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn) + 1) + /* + * Check start/end vcn. svcn == 0 with evcn == -1 (U64_MAX) is the + * sentinel for an empty non-resident attribute (no allocated + * clusters) and must be accepted: "svcn > evcn + 1" tolerates it, + * since "(u64)-1 + 1" is 0 and "0 > 0" is false. + * + * For a non-empty attribute evcn is a cluster index and must lie + * within the volume (sbi->used.bitmap.nbits, set up in + * ntfs_init_from_boot() before any caller of mi_enum_attr() runs). + * Bounding evcn also prevents a malformed value close to U64_MAX + * from slipping through the near-wrap "evcn + 1" upper bound. + */ + svcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.svcn); + evcn = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.evcn); + if (svcn > evcn + 1 || + (evcn != U64_MAX && evcn >= mi->sbi->used.bitmap.nbits)) goto out; data_size = le64_to_cpu(attr->nres.data_size); -- 2.43.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-06-24 3:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-04-24 2:46 [PATCH] fs/ntfs3: reject evcn == U64_MAX in mi_enum_attr() Zhan Xusheng 2026-04-24 9:20 ` David Laight 2026-04-24 13:20 ` Zhan Xusheng 2026-04-24 15:15 ` David Laight 2026-04-25 2:03 ` Zhan Xusheng 2026-04-25 10:42 ` David Laight 2026-04-27 3:47 ` [PATCH v2] fs/ntfs3: reject invalid evcn == (u64)-1 " Zhan Xusheng 2026-04-27 3:50 ` [PATCH v3] " Zhan Xusheng 2026-05-15 8:23 ` [PATCH v4] fs/ntfs3: reject out-of-range evcn " fra-build 2026-05-15 9:28 ` David Laight 2026-05-28 14:03 ` Konstantin Komarov 2026-06-24 3:44 ` [PATCH v5] " Zhan Xusheng
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.