Re: [PATCH] fs: ocfs2: fix kernel BUG in ocfs2_find_victim_chain

Prithvi Tambewagh
2025-12-01T05:50:42Z

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 10:51:49AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>
>
>On 2025/11/30 18:46, Prithvi Tambewagh wrote:
>> syzbot reported a kernel BUG in ocfs2_find_victim_chain() because the
>> `cl_next_free_rec` field of the allocation chain list is 0, triggring the
>> BUG_ON(!cl->cl_next_free_rec) condition and panicking the kernel.
>>
>> To fix this, `cl_next_free_rec` is checked inside the caller of
>> ocfs2_find_victim_chain() i.e. ocfs2_claim_suballoc_bits() and if it is
>> equal to 0, ocfs2_error() is called, to log the corruption and force the
>> filesystem into read-only mode, to prevent further damage.
>>
>> Reported-by: syzbot+96d38c6e1655c1420a72@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=96d38c6e1655c1420a72
>> Tested-by: syzbot+96d38c6e1655c1420a72@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Prithvi Tambewagh <activprithvi@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c b/fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c
>> index 6ac4dcd54588..84bb2d11c2aa 100644
>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c
>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c
>> @@ -1993,6 +1993,13 @@ static int ocfs2_claim_suballoc_bits(struct ocfs2_alloc_context *ac,
>>
>> cl = (struct ocfs2_chain_list *) &fe->id2.i_chain;
>>
>
>This blank line can be eliminated.
>
>> + if (le16_to_cpu(cl->cl_next_free_rec) == 0) {
>
>Better to add the upper limit check as well. e.g.
>
>!le16_to_cpu(cl->cl_next_free_rec) ||
>le16_to_cpu(cl->cl_next_free_rec) > le16_to_cpu(cl->cl_count)
>
>Thanks,
>Joseph
>
>> + status = ocfs2_error(ac->ac_inode->i_sb,
>> + "Chain allocator dinode %llu has 0 chains\n",
>> + (unsigned long long)le64_to_cpu(fe->i_blkno));
>> + goto bail;
>> + }
>> +
>> victim = ocfs2_find_victim_chain(cl);
>> ac->ac_chain = victim;
>>
>>
>> base-commit: 939f15e640f193616691d3bcde0089760e75b0d3
>

Hello Joseph,

Thanks for the feedback! I will make the changes in the patch. I wanted
to confirm that the new patch should be sent as v2 on this same thread,
along with the change log since v1, right?

Thanks,
Prithvi