* [PATCH] fs/exfat: resolve memory leak from exfat_create_upcase_table()
@ 2024-09-15 6:44 Daniel Yang
2024-09-15 7:05 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Yang @ 2024-09-15 6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Namjae Jeon, Sungjong Seo, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
Cc: Daniel Yang, syzbot+e1c69cadec0f1a078e3d
If exfat_load_upcase_table reaches end and returns -EINVAL,
allocated memory doesn't get freed and while
exfat_load_default_upcase_table allocates more memory, leading to a
memory leak.
Here's link to syzkaller crash report illustrating this issue:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=CrashReport&x=1406c201980000
Signed-off-by: Daniel Yang <danielyangkang@gmail.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+e1c69cadec0f1a078e3d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
---
fs/exfat/nls.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/fs/exfat/nls.c b/fs/exfat/nls.c
index afdf13c34..ec69477d0 100644
--- a/fs/exfat/nls.c
+++ b/fs/exfat/nls.c
@@ -699,6 +699,7 @@ static int exfat_load_upcase_table(struct super_block *sb,
exfat_err(sb, "failed to load upcase table (idx : 0x%08x, chksum : 0x%08x, utbl_chksum : 0x%08x)",
index, chksum, utbl_checksum);
+ exfat_free_upcase_table(sbi);
return -EINVAL;
}
--
2.39.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] fs/exfat: resolve memory leak from exfat_create_upcase_table()
2024-09-15 6:44 [PATCH] fs/exfat: resolve memory leak from exfat_create_upcase_table() Daniel Yang
@ 2024-09-15 7:05 ` Al Viro
2024-09-15 7:23 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2024-09-15 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Yang
Cc: Namjae Jeon, Sungjong Seo, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel,
syzbot+e1c69cadec0f1a078e3d
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 11:44:03PM -0700, Daniel Yang wrote:
> If exfat_load_upcase_table reaches end and returns -EINVAL,
> allocated memory doesn't get freed and while
> exfat_load_default_upcase_table allocates more memory, leading to a
> memory leak.
>
> Here's link to syzkaller crash report illustrating this issue:
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=CrashReport&x=1406c201980000
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Yang <danielyangkang@gmail.com>
> Reported-by: syzbot+e1c69cadec0f1a078e3d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> ---
> fs/exfat/nls.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exfat/nls.c b/fs/exfat/nls.c
> index afdf13c34..ec69477d0 100644
> --- a/fs/exfat/nls.c
> +++ b/fs/exfat/nls.c
> @@ -699,6 +699,7 @@ static int exfat_load_upcase_table(struct super_block *sb,
>
> exfat_err(sb, "failed to load upcase table (idx : 0x%08x, chksum : 0x%08x, utbl_chksum : 0x%08x)",
> index, chksum, utbl_checksum);
> + exfat_free_upcase_table(sbi);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
Interesting... How does the mainline manage to avoid the
call of exfat_kill_sb(), which should call_rcu() delayed_free(), which
calls exfat_free_upcase_table()?
Could you verify that your reproducer does *NOT* hit that
callchain? AFAICS, the only caller of exfat_load_upcase_table()
is exfat_create_upcase_table(), called by __exfat_fill_super(),
called by exfat_fill_super(), passed as callback to get_tree_bdev().
And if that's the case, ->kill_sb() should be called on failure and
with non-NULL ->s_fs_info...
Something odd is going on there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs/exfat: resolve memory leak from exfat_create_upcase_table()
2024-09-15 7:05 ` Al Viro
@ 2024-09-15 7:23 ` Al Viro
2024-09-15 7:26 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2024-09-15 7:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Yang
Cc: Namjae Jeon, Sungjong Seo, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel,
syzbot+e1c69cadec0f1a078e3d
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 08:05:46AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Interesting... How does the mainline manage to avoid the
> call of exfat_kill_sb(), which should call_rcu() delayed_free(), which
> calls exfat_free_upcase_table()?
>
> Could you verify that your reproducer does *NOT* hit that
> callchain? AFAICS, the only caller of exfat_load_upcase_table()
> is exfat_create_upcase_table(), called by __exfat_fill_super(),
> called by exfat_fill_super(), passed as callback to get_tree_bdev().
> And if that's the case, ->kill_sb() should be called on failure and
> with non-NULL ->s_fs_info...
>
> Something odd is going on there.
Yecchh... OK, I see what's happening, and the patch is probably
correct, but IMO it's way too subtle. Unless I'm misreading what's
going on there, you have the following:
exfat_load_upcase_table() have 3 failure exits.
One of them is with -ENOMEM; no table allocated and we proceed to
exfat_load_default_upcase_table().
Another is with -EIO. In that case the table is left allocated, the
caller of exfat_load_upcase_table() returns immediately and the normal
logics in ->kill_sb() takes it out.
Finally, there's one with -EINVAL. There the caller proceeds to
exfat_load_default_upcase_table(), which is where the mainline leaks.
That's the case your patch adjusts.
Note that resulting rules for exfat_load_upcase_table()
* should leave for ->kill_sb() to free if failing with -EIO.
* should make sure it's freed on all other failure exits.
At the very least that needs to be documented. However, since the
problem happens when the caller proceeds to exfat_load_default_upcase_table(),
the things would be simpler if you had taken the "need to free what we'd
allocated" logics into the place where that logics is visible. I.e.
ret = exfat_load_upcase_table(sb, sector, num_sectors,
le32_to_cpu(ep->dentry.upcase.checksum));
brelse(bh);
if (ret && ret != -EIO) {
/* clean after exfat_load_upcase_table() */
exfat_free_upcase_table(sbi);
goto load_default;
}
IMO it would be less brittle that way. And commit message needs
the explanation of the leak mechanism - a link to reporter is
nice, but it doesn't explain what's going on.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] fs/exfat: resolve memory leak from exfat_create_upcase_table()
2024-09-15 7:23 ` Al Viro
@ 2024-09-15 7:26 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2024-09-15 7:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Yang
Cc: Namjae Jeon, Sungjong Seo, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel,
syzbot+e1c69cadec0f1a078e3d
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 08:23:36AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> IMO it would be less brittle that way. And commit message needs
> the explanation of the leak mechanism - a link to reporter is
> nice, but it doesn't explain what's going on.
Actually, nevermind the part about commit message - what you have
there is OK. I still think that the call would be better off
in exfat_create_upcase_table(), though - less brittle that way.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-09-15 7:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-09-15 6:44 [PATCH] fs/exfat: resolve memory leak from exfat_create_upcase_table() Daniel Yang
2024-09-15 7:05 ` Al Viro
2024-09-15 7:23 ` Al Viro
2024-09-15 7:26 ` Al Viro
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).