public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: check attribute leaf block structure
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:27:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191028182727.GY15222@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191028181813.GB26529@bfoster>

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 02:18:13PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:14:53PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > 
> > Add missing structure checks in the attribute leaf verifier.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c |   63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c
> > index ec7921e07f69..8dea3a273029 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c
> > @@ -232,6 +232,57 @@ xfs_attr3_leaf_hdr_to_disk(
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > +static xfs_failaddr_t
> > +xfs_attr3_leaf_verify_entry(
> > +	struct xfs_mount			*mp,
> > +	char					*buf_end,
> > +	struct xfs_attr_leafblock		*leaf,
> > +	struct xfs_attr3_icleaf_hdr		*leafhdr,
> > +	struct xfs_attr_leaf_entry		*ent,
> > +	int					idx,
> > +	__u32					*last_hashval)
> > +{
> > +	struct xfs_attr_leaf_name_local		*lentry;
> > +	struct xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote	*rentry;
> > +	char					*name_end;
> > +	unsigned int				nameidx;
> > +	unsigned int				namesize;
> > +	__u32					hashval;
> > +
> > +	/* hash order check */
> > +	hashval = be32_to_cpu(ent->hashval);
> > +	if (hashval < *last_hashval)
> > +		return __this_address;
> > +	*last_hashval = hashval;
> > +
> > +	nameidx = be16_to_cpu(ent->nameidx);
> > +	if (nameidx < leafhdr->firstused || nameidx >= mp->m_attr_geo->blksize)
> > +		return __this_address;
> > +
> > +	/* Check the name information. */
> > +	if (ent->flags & XFS_ATTR_LOCAL) {
> > +		lentry = xfs_attr3_leaf_name_local(leaf, idx);
> > +		namesize = xfs_attr_leaf_entsize_local(lentry->namelen,
> > +				be16_to_cpu(lentry->valuelen));
> > +		name_end = (char *)lentry + namesize;
> > +		if (lentry->namelen == 0)
> > +			return __this_address;
> 
> I think this reads a little better if we check the lentry value before
> we use it (same deal with rentry in the branch below).
> 
> Also, why the == 0 checks specifically? Or IOW, might there also be a
> sane max value to check some of these fields against?

Attributes have a maximum name length of 255 characters, and the ondisk
namelen field is u8, so it's never possible to exceed the maximum.

> > +	} else {
> > +		rentry = xfs_attr3_leaf_name_remote(leaf, idx);
> > +		namesize = xfs_attr_leaf_entsize_remote(rentry->namelen);
> > +		name_end = (char *)rentry + namesize;
> > +		if (rentry->namelen == 0)
> > +			return __this_address;
> > +		if (rentry->valueblk == 0)
> > +			return __this_address;
> 
> Hmm.. ISTR that it's currently possible to have ->valueblk == 0 on an
> incomplete remote attr after a crash. That's not ideal and hopefully
> fixed up after the xattr intent stuff lands, but in the meantime I
> thought we had code sprinkled around somewhere to fix that up after the
> fact. Would this turn that scenario into a metadata I/O error?

<urk> Yes, it would.  I'll fix that.

--D

> 
> Brian
> 
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (name_end > buf_end)
> > +		return __this_address;
> > +
> > +	return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static xfs_failaddr_t
> >  xfs_attr3_leaf_verify(
> >  	struct xfs_buf			*bp)
> > @@ -240,7 +291,10 @@ xfs_attr3_leaf_verify(
> >  	struct xfs_mount		*mp = bp->b_mount;
> >  	struct xfs_attr_leafblock	*leaf = bp->b_addr;
> >  	struct xfs_attr_leaf_entry	*entries;
> > +	struct xfs_attr_leaf_entry	*ent;
> > +	char				*buf_end;
> >  	uint32_t			end;	/* must be 32bit - see below */
> > +	__u32				last_hashval = 0;
> >  	int				i;
> >  	xfs_failaddr_t			fa;
> >  
> > @@ -273,8 +327,13 @@ xfs_attr3_leaf_verify(
> >  	    (char *)bp->b_addr + ichdr.firstused)
> >  		return __this_address;
> >  
> > -	/* XXX: need to range check rest of attr header values */
> > -	/* XXX: hash order check? */
> > +	buf_end = (char *)bp->b_addr + mp->m_attr_geo->blksize;
> > +	for (i = 0, ent = entries; i < ichdr.count; ent++, i++) {
> > +		fa = xfs_attr3_leaf_verify_entry(mp, buf_end, leaf, &ichdr,
> > +				ent, i, &last_hashval);
> > +		if (fa)
> > +			return fa;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Quickly check the freemap information.  Attribute data has to be
> > 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-28 18:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-25  5:14 [PATCH 0/4] xfs: more metadata verifier tightening Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-25  5:14 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs: check attribute leaf block structure Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-28 18:18   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-28 18:27     ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2019-10-25  5:14 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfs: namecheck attribute names before listing them Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-28 18:18   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-28 18:22     ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-25  5:15 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfs: namecheck directory entry " Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-25 12:56   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-25 16:04     ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-29  7:16       ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-29 16:23         ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-30 21:32           ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-30 22:18             ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-28 18:19   ` Brian Foster
2019-10-28 18:23     ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-25  5:15 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs: replace -EIO with -EFSCORRUPTED for corrupt metadata Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-25 12:54   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-10-28 18:19   ` Brian Foster
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-10-29  4:03 [PATCH v2 0/4] xfs: more metadata verifier tightening Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-29  4:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs: check attribute leaf block structure Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-29 10:03   ` Brian Foster

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=20191028182727.GY15222@magnolia \
    --to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox