From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: jhapavitra98@gmail.com,Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com,idryomov@gmail.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] libceph: fix two unsafe bare decodes in decode_lockers()" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 15:47:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2026072949-fresh-evolution-3660@gregkh> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-5.10.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x a109a556115271ca7896dcda7b4b7e45e156c227
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2026072949-fresh-evolution-3660@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.10.y' 'HEAD^..'
Possible dependencies:
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From a109a556115271ca7896dcda7b4b7e45e156c227 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pavitra Jha <jhapavitra98@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 00:17:35 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] libceph: fix two unsafe bare decodes in decode_lockers()
decode_lockers() in cls_lock_client.c contains two bare decode operations
that allow a malicious or compromised OSD to trigger slab-out-of-bounds
reads:
1. ceph_decode_32(p) at the num_lockers field has no preceding bounds
check. ceph_start_decoding() accepts struct_len=0 as valid -- the
internal ceph_decode_need(p, end, 0, bad) always passes -- so when an
OSD sends struct_len=0, ceph_start_decoding() returns success with
p == end. The immediately following bare ceph_decode_32(p) then reads
4 bytes past the validated buffer boundary. The garbage value is
passed directly to kzalloc_objs() as the locker count.
The sibling function decode_watchers() in osd_client.c already uses
ceph_decode_32_safe() after its own ceph_start_decoding() call.
decode_lockers() was the only site using the bare variant.
2. ceph_decode_8(p) after the decode_locker() loop has no preceding
bounds check. If an OSD crafts num_lockers such that the loop
advances p exactly to end, the subsequent bare ceph_decode_8(p) reads
one byte past the validated buffer boundary. The result is passed
directly into *type, which is used as a lock type discriminator by
callers, giving an OSD-controlled one-byte OOB read with direct
influence over the lock type field.
Fix both by replacing bare operations with their safe variants:
ceph_decode_32(p) -> ceph_decode_32_safe(p, end, *num_lockers,
err_inval)
ceph_decode_8(p) -> ceph_decode_8_safe(p, end, *type,
err_free_lockers)
The goto targets differ intentionally:
err_inval: is a new label returning -EINVAL directly. It is used for
the pre-allocation failure path where *lockers is not yet allocated
and must not be passed to ceph_free_lockers().
err_free_lockers: is the existing label. It is used for the
post-allocation failure path where *lockers is allocated and must
be freed.
ret is set to -EINVAL before ceph_decode_8_safe() so that
err_free_lockers returns the correct error code on bounds violation.
Without this, err_free_lockers would return a stale ret value (0 from
the successful decode_locker() loop), silently swallowing the error.
-EINVAL is correct for both failure paths. The data received from the
OSD is structurally malformed. -ENOMEM would misrepresent the failure
class to callers and to stable@ backporters triaging error paths.
Attacker model: a malicious or compromised OSD in a multi-tenant Ceph
deployment can trigger this against any kernel client that issues the
lock.get_info class method (e.g. during RBD exclusive lock acquisition).
[ idryomov: trim changelog, formatting ]
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: d4ed4a530562 ("libceph: support for lock.lock_info")
Signed-off-by: Pavitra Jha <jhapavitra98@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
diff --git a/net/ceph/cls_lock_client.c b/net/ceph/cls_lock_client.c
index c6956f1df333..377336982f7d 100644
--- a/net/ceph/cls_lock_client.c
+++ b/net/ceph/cls_lock_client.c
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int decode_lockers(void **p, void *end, u8 *type, char **tag,
if (ret)
return ret;
- *num_lockers = ceph_decode_32(p);
+ ceph_decode_32_safe(p, end, *num_lockers, err_inval);
*lockers = kzalloc_objs(**lockers, *num_lockers, GFP_NOIO);
if (!*lockers)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -310,7 +310,8 @@ static int decode_lockers(void **p, void *end, u8 *type, char **tag,
goto err_free_lockers;
}
- *type = ceph_decode_8(p);
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ ceph_decode_8_safe(p, end, *type, err_free_lockers);
s = ceph_extract_encoded_string(p, end, NULL, GFP_NOIO);
if (IS_ERR(s)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(s);
@@ -320,6 +321,9 @@ static int decode_lockers(void **p, void *end, u8 *type, char **tag,
*tag = s;
return 0;
+err_inval:
+ return -EINVAL;
+
err_free_lockers:
ceph_free_lockers(*lockers, *num_lockers);
return ret;
next reply other threads:[~2026-07-29 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-29 13:47 gregkh [this message]
2026-08-08 12:05 ` [PATCH 5.10.y] libceph: fix two unsafe bare decodes in decode_lockers() Sasha Levin
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=2026072949-fresh-evolution-3660@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com \
--cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
--cc=jhapavitra98@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@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