From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
To: Hongling Zeng <zhongling0719@126.com>
Cc: Hongling Zeng <zenghongling@kylinos.cn>,
darrick.wong@oracle.com, chandanrlinux@gmail.com,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix array bounds checking in log recovery
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 11:49:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <apafftcOk6XIDYTQ@andromeda.toxiclabs.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6A969D6D.6060808@126.com>
On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 05:39:57PM +0800, Hongling Zeng wrote:
>
> 在 2026年09月01日 15:06, Carlos Maiolino 写道:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 05:45:35PM +0800, Hongling Zeng wrote:
> > > The log recovery code increments array indices based on bits set in
> > > blf_data_map without verifying that the indices stay within the bounds
> > > of the item->ri_buf array.
> > >
> > > Since blf_data_map is from untrusted log data, a malicious log could set
> > > many bits while ri_total is small, causing array index overflow.
> > >
> > > This can result in an out-of-bounds access during log recovery, causing
> > > a kernel crash or memory corruption.
> > >
> > > This patch adds array bounds checking for ri_buf access in
> > > xlog_recover_do_reg_buffer() and xlog_recover_do_inode_buffer().
> > >
> > > The check in xlog_recover_do_inode_buffer() is placed right before the
> > > actual array access, not after incrementing the index, to avoid false
> > > positives when processing the last valid region.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 1094d3f12363 ("xfs: refactor log recovery buffer item dispatch for pass2 commit functions")
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Hongling Zeng <zenghongling@kylinos.cn>
> > Hi,
> >
> > is this a re-send? A v2? Please specify why you are sending the same
> > patche again. This saves a lot of time trying to understand why there
> > are two patches with the same subject in the list.
> Hi ,
> This is the same patch version, but the previous submission failed to
> apply because my local repository was out of date. I updated my tree and
> resubmitted the patch with the same fix.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
So this is not the same version, it's a rebase against top of the tree
and that should be properly described.
I'll be updating for-next soon this week, please rebase it again on top
of for-next once I publish it and re-send it.
Cheers,
Carlos
>
> Thanks,
> Hongling
> > > ---
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item_recover.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item_recover.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item_recover.c
> > > index 57929f115055..7148716366ba 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item_recover.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item_recover.c
> > > @@ -485,6 +485,19 @@ xlog_recover_do_reg_buffer(
> > > break;
> > > nbits = xfs_contig_bits(buf_f->blf_data_map,
> > > buf_f->blf_map_size, bit);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * The bitmap can have more bits set than there are regions
> > > + * in ri_buf, so we must check array bounds before using the
> > > + * index to access ri_buf[i].
> > > + */
> > > + if (XFS_IS_CORRUPT(mp, i >= item->ri_total)) {
> > > + xfs_alert(mp,
> > > + "Buffer log item index (%d) exceeds allocated regions (%d).",
> > > + i, item->ri_total);
> > > + return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ASSERT(nbits > 0);
> > > ASSERT(item->ri_buf[i].iov_base != NULL);
> > > ASSERT(item->ri_buf[i].iov_len % XFS_BLF_CHUNK == 0);
> > > @@ -688,6 +701,19 @@ xlog_recover_do_inode_buffer(
> > > if (next_unlinked_offset < reg_buf_offset)
> > > continue;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Check array bounds here (right before accessing ri_buf)
> > > + * rather than after incrementing item_index. This avoids
> > > + * incorrectly rejecting logs when item_index reaches
> > > + * ri_total after processing the final valid region.
> > > + */
> > > + if (XFS_IS_CORRUPT(mp, item_index >= item->ri_total)) {
> > > + xfs_alert(mp,
> > > + "Inode buffer log item index (%d) exceeds allocated regions (%d).",
> > > + item_index, item->ri_total);
> > > + return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > ASSERT(item->ri_buf[item_index].iov_base != NULL);
> > > ASSERT((item->ri_buf[item_index].iov_len % XFS_BLF_CHUNK) == 0);
> > > ASSERT((reg_buf_offset + reg_buf_bytes) <= BBTOB(bp->b_length));
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> > >
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-01 9:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-24 9:45 [PATCH] xfs: fix array bounds checking in log recovery Hongling Zeng
2026-09-01 7:06 ` Carlos Maiolino
2026-09-01 9:39 ` Hongling Zeng
2026-09-01 9:49 ` Carlos Maiolino [this message]
2026-09-01 9:57 ` Hongling Zeng
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-08-18 7:11 Hongling Zeng
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=apafftcOk6XIDYTQ@andromeda.toxiclabs.cc \
--to=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=chandanrlinux@gmail.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zenghongling@kylinos.cn \
--cc=zhongling0719@126.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