From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: jhapavitra98@gmail.com,Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com,idryomov@gmail.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] libceph: fix two unsafe bare decodes in decode_lockers()" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 15:47:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2026072949-fresh-evolution-3660@gregkh> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-5.10.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x a109a556115271ca7896dcda7b4b7e45e156c227
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2026072949-fresh-evolution-3660@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.10.y' 'HEAD^..'
Possible dependencies:
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From a109a556115271ca7896dcda7b4b7e45e156c227 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pavitra Jha <jhapavitra98@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 00:17:35 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] libceph: fix two unsafe bare decodes in decode_lockers()
decode_lockers() in cls_lock_client.c contains two bare decode operations
that allow a malicious or compromised OSD to trigger slab-out-of-bounds
reads:
1. ceph_decode_32(p) at the num_lockers field has no preceding bounds
check. ceph_start_decoding() accepts struct_len=0 as valid -- the
internal ceph_decode_need(p, end, 0, bad) always passes -- so when an
OSD sends struct_len=0, ceph_start_decoding() returns success with
p == end. The immediately following bare ceph_decode_32(p) then reads
4 bytes past the validated buffer boundary. The garbage value is
passed directly to kzalloc_objs() as the locker count.
The sibling function decode_watchers() in osd_client.c already uses
ceph_decode_32_safe() after its own ceph_start_decoding() call.
decode_lockers() was the only site using the bare variant.
2. ceph_decode_8(p) after the decode_locker() loop has no preceding
bounds check. If an OSD crafts num_lockers such that the loop
advances p exactly to end, the subsequent bare ceph_decode_8(p) reads
one byte past the validated buffer boundary. The result is passed
directly into *type, which is used as a lock type discriminator by
callers, giving an OSD-controlled one-byte OOB read with direct
influence over the lock type field.
Fix both by replacing bare operations with their safe variants:
ceph_decode_32(p) -> ceph_decode_32_safe(p, end, *num_lockers,
err_inval)
ceph_decode_8(p) -> ceph_decode_8_safe(p, end, *type,
err_free_lockers)
The goto targets differ intentionally:
err_inval: is a new label returning -EINVAL directly. It is used for
the pre-allocation failure path where *lockers is not yet allocated
and must not be passed to ceph_free_lockers().
err_free_lockers: is the existing label. It is used for the
post-allocation failure path where *lockers is allocated and must
be freed.
ret is set to -EINVAL before ceph_decode_8_safe() so that
err_free_lockers returns the correct error code on bounds violation.
Without this, err_free_lockers would return a stale ret value (0 from
the successful decode_locker() loop), silently swallowing the error.
-EINVAL is correct for both failure paths. The data received from the
OSD is structurally malformed. -ENOMEM would misrepresent the failure
class to callers and to stable@ backporters triaging error paths.
Attacker model: a malicious or compromised OSD in a multi-tenant Ceph
deployment can trigger this against any kernel client that issues the
lock.get_info class method (e.g. during RBD exclusive lock acquisition).
[ idryomov: trim changelog, formatting ]
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: d4ed4a530562 ("libceph: support for lock.lock_info")
Signed-off-by: Pavitra Jha <jhapavitra98@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
diff --git a/net/ceph/cls_lock_client.c b/net/ceph/cls_lock_client.c
index c6956f1df333..377336982f7d 100644
--- a/net/ceph/cls_lock_client.c
+++ b/net/ceph/cls_lock_client.c
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int decode_lockers(void **p, void *end, u8 *type, char **tag,
if (ret)
return ret;
- *num_lockers = ceph_decode_32(p);
+ ceph_decode_32_safe(p, end, *num_lockers, err_inval);
*lockers = kzalloc_objs(**lockers, *num_lockers, GFP_NOIO);
if (!*lockers)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -310,7 +310,8 @@ static int decode_lockers(void **p, void *end, u8 *type, char **tag,
goto err_free_lockers;
}
- *type = ceph_decode_8(p);
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ ceph_decode_8_safe(p, end, *type, err_free_lockers);
s = ceph_extract_encoded_string(p, end, NULL, GFP_NOIO);
if (IS_ERR(s)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(s);
@@ -320,6 +321,9 @@ static int decode_lockers(void **p, void *end, u8 *type, char **tag,
*tag = s;
return 0;
+err_inval:
+ return -EINVAL;
+
err_free_lockers:
ceph_free_lockers(*lockers, *num_lockers);
return ret;
next reply other threads:[~2026-07-29 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-29 13:47 gregkh [this message]
2026-08-08 12:05 ` [PATCH 5.10.y] libceph: fix two unsafe bare decodes in decode_lockers() Sasha Levin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2026072949-fresh-evolution-3660@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=jhapavitra98@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.