From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Cc: Baokun Li <libaokun@linux.alibaba.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] ext4: oops in ext4_finish_bio() after enabling encryption on a mounted fs
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 11:04:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260924180438.GB1978@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arU-kvN-75AEmNQw@igalia.com>
On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 06:01:19PM +0000, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > The proposed patch looks good
>
> As I said, I think we need an additional check to detect if encryption
> is set on a mounted filesystem that has blocksize > pagesize.
>
> Such a filesystem cannot be mounted (ext4_check_large_folio refuses),
> but if you do it after the fs is mounted you can crash the kernel
> using the same method.
>
> # mkfs.ext4 -b 16384 /dev/vdb
> # mount /dev/vdb /mnt/
> # fscrypt setup /mnt
> # tune2fs -O encrypt /dev/vdb
> # mkdir /mnt/foo
> # fscrypt encrypt /mnt/foo/
>
> The other patch alone does not prevent this.
>
> With this additional change, FS_IOC_SET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY returns
> -EOPNOTSUPP, so tune2fs succeeds, but 'fscrypt encrypt' fails:
>
> [ERROR] fscrypt encrypt: encryption not enabled on filesystem /mnt (/dev/vdb).
>
> --- a/fs/ext4/crypto.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/crypto.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,9 @@ static int ext4_set_context(struct inode *inode, const void *ctx, size_t len,
> if (ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_DAX))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> + if (inode->i_sb->s_blocksize > PAGE_SIZE)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> res = ext4_convert_inline_data(inode);
> if (res)
> return res;
>
> That prevents the crash, but the filesystem cannot be remounted:
>
> kernel: EXT4-fs (vdb): bs(16384) > ps(4096) unsupported for encrypt
>
> Would this be enough or is there anything else to take into account?
Right, encryption should work with large folios now, but not with
fs_block_size > PAGE_SIZE. For the latter, for now I think we need a
few different things to prevent it:
* (Already present) A mount-time check, to prevent mounting when the
encrypt feature flag is set and fs_block_size > PAGE_SIZE;
* A check in ext4_set_context(), as you suggested, to prevent new
encrypted files from being created when fs_block_size > PAGE_SIZE
after the encrypt feature flag was set at runtime;
* tune2fs should disallow setting the encrypt feature flag in the first
place when fs_block_size > PAGE_SIZE;
* And maybe a check in __ext4_iget() to prevent existing encrypted
inodes from being loaded when fs_block_size > PAGE_SIZE. This would
be needed for fuzzing robustness, where a fuzzer generates a
filesystem that has encrypted files without the encrypt feature flag.
(I don't remember whether ext4 claims to support this level of fuzzing
robustness, though. __ext4_iget() has a few similar checks for other
filesystem features, but it's very incomplete, so I'm not sure.)
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-24 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-23 11:12 [REGRESSION] ext4: oops in ext4_finish_bio() after enabling encryption on a mounted fs Alberto Garcia
2026-09-23 11:43 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-23 12:12 ` Baokun Li
2026-09-23 12:40 ` Alberto Garcia
2026-09-23 13:28 ` Baokun Li
2026-09-23 18:01 ` Eric Biggers
2026-09-24 10:19 ` Baokun Li
2026-09-24 15:15 ` Alberto Garcia
2026-09-24 18:04 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2026-09-25 11:06 ` Alberto Garcia
2026-09-25 19:07 ` Eric Biggers
2026-09-27 22:12 ` Alberto Garcia
2026-09-29 11:18 ` Jan Kara
2026-09-23 13:29 ` Jan Kara
2026-09-23 13:39 ` Alberto Garcia
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=20260924180438.GB1978@sol \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=berto@igalia.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=libaokun@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox