From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8AB824DCEB for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2025 14:46:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758293166; cv=none; b=nHx/LdJTCPggpS2D+zDDswJRfr4tdxUjubpFLAyaXSjFZcmE4024cYXarbUqU0BGycR8dlGJAB0NEWjOKbyLtQZoSpQ/GNXMwIkGCgFE35NjT4fa0ECsxqfU4mrSX6Wd4bge13r/t4rKkFJjCTUrwasQAwgwna6zYMoygWH4VfQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758293166; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2MTK23vuo2CKjb7oozhaqOgEaFFuCN+amqxDrseDFbA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lIhqq6BqR96/8UN9X97LZftXueNZL5d1L4AfP/qSM3XSvoz2bCXh1fW1I9t/tG01qWn94M6W7W5oBJ0MQYbEPTHOC9oUH1cEBTPl3b57p/v5M47aqhrr2TFuMc03sfXnDVzjcAZdA9iG+QqR1YE2o6rzBIVHCLZgakxgvRlVs7Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=am6klZks; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="am6klZks" Received: from trampoline.thunk.org (pool-173-48-111-47.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.111.47]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 58JEjmDl025285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:45:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1758293151; bh=/uU8JB3lnEDct4CiuBwq0NtIG+7u6ORH4LbnEydmI40=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=am6klZksCSxOzCs/veCZ/BQm0/jo0WROhYwaT6NRgzX5LZU7Cef3Du4mTB0rNjRH2 R47QqL2GjGtFtTRPH6CpxTW0UxgrA5KLOeulsRC8cU8KV+vwZLofZJEmJ2gB3yAjM7 YtiPbxM4Vyp/3e0hrtNpb03mAkQ0gTzA4s1NzAzO1LMIqsxzc/Cw0XCEMhtoCsS3BE F/oTIm8kt9Hkrvj3wjinjojGkLu3960904WypXyImOwv0hwCIx0UJXkAguQqjLvzKn xCMv1zPKbgCyx4ajH+VDPR56iaLBNC9zuWniZlpkuYcyTFsbnM3JHgDQltHwWKhf55 UlxtEZVL5c0WA== Received: by trampoline.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 7F06E2E00D9; Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:45:48 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Ahmet Eray Karadag , adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Albin Babu Varghese Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix: ext4: guard against EA inode refcount underflow in xattr update Message-ID: <20250919144548.GE416742@mit.edu> References: <20250918175545.48297-1-eraykrdg1@gmail.com> <20250918181801.GI8084@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250918181801.GI8084@frogsfrogsfrogs> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:18:01AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/xattr.c b/fs/ext4/xattr.c > > index 5a6fe1513fd2..a056f98579c3 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext4/xattr.c > > +++ b/fs/ext4/xattr.c > > @@ -1030,6 +1030,13 @@ static int ext4_xattr_inode_update_ref(handle_t *handle, struct inode *ea_inode, > > > > ref_count = ext4_xattr_inode_get_ref(ea_inode); > > ref_count += ref_change; > > + if (ref_count < 0) { > > Shouldn't this check ref_count >= ref_change *before* updating it? As Ahmet pointed out, so long as we don't actually update the on-disk data structure, it's fine. The issue I'm more concerned about is that if ref_change is +1, we could also have an overflow where we go from an ridiculously large positive number (~0) to 0. Your change might fix one potential syzbot-discovered issue caused by a maliciously fuzzed file system, but we should harden it against similar problems going in the opposite problem. Cheers, - Ted