The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-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.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From a6ab66eb8541d61b0a11d70980f07b4c2dfeddc5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Su Yue l@damenly.su Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:42:07 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: tree-checker: use u64 for item data end to avoid overflow
User reported there is an array-index-out-of-bounds access while mounting the crafted image:
[350.411942 ] loop0: detected capacity change from 0 to 262144 [350.427058 ] BTRFS: device fsid a62e00e8-e94e-4200-8217-12444de93c2e devid 1 transid 8 /dev/loop0 scanned by systemd-udevd (1044) [350.428564 ] BTRFS info (device loop0): disk space caching is enabled [350.428568 ] BTRFS info (device loop0): has skinny extents [350.429589 ] [350.429619 ] UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in fs/btrfs/struct-funcs.c:161:1 [350.429636 ] index 1048096 is out of range for type 'page *[16]' [350.429650 ] CPU: 0 PID: 9 Comm: kworker/u8:1 Not tainted 5.16.0-rc4 [350.429652 ] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014 [350.429653 ] Workqueue: btrfs-endio-meta btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] [350.429772 ] Call Trace: [350.429774 ] <TASK> [350.429776 ] dump_stack_lvl+0x47/0x5c [350.429780 ] ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x50 [350.429786 ] __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds+0x66/0x70 [350.429791 ] btrfs_get_16+0xfd/0x120 [btrfs] [350.429832 ] check_leaf+0x754/0x1a40 [btrfs] [350.429874 ] ? filemap_read+0x34a/0x390 [350.429878 ] ? load_balance+0x175/0xfc0 [350.429881 ] validate_extent_buffer+0x244/0x310 [btrfs] [350.429911 ] btrfs_validate_metadata_buffer+0xf8/0x100 [btrfs] [350.429935 ] end_bio_extent_readpage+0x3af/0x850 [btrfs] [350.429969 ] ? newidle_balance+0x259/0x480 [350.429972 ] end_workqueue_fn+0x29/0x40 [btrfs] [350.429995 ] btrfs_work_helper+0x71/0x330 [btrfs] [350.430030 ] ? __schedule+0x2fb/0xa40 [350.430033 ] process_one_work+0x1f6/0x400 [350.430035 ] ? process_one_work+0x400/0x400 [350.430036 ] worker_thread+0x2d/0x3d0 [350.430037 ] ? process_one_work+0x400/0x400 [350.430038 ] kthread+0x165/0x190 [350.430041 ] ? set_kthread_struct+0x40/0x40 [350.430043 ] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 [350.430047 ] </TASK> [350.430047 ] [350.430077 ] BTRFS warning (device loop0): bad eb member start: ptr 0xffe20f4e start 20975616 member offset 4293005178 size 2
btrfs check reports: corrupt leaf: root=3 block=20975616 physical=20975616 slot=1, unexpected item end, have 4294971193 expect 3897
The first slot item offset is 4293005033 and the size is 1966160. In check_leaf, we use btrfs_item_end() to check item boundary versus extent_buffer data size. However, return type of btrfs_item_end() is u32. (u32)(4293005033 + 1966160) == 3897, overflow happens and the result 3897 equals to leaf data size reasonably.
Fix it by use u64 variable to store item data end in check_leaf() to avoid u32 overflow.
This commit does solve the invalid memory access showed by the stack trace. However, its metadata profile is DUP and another copy of the leaf is fine. So the image can be mounted successfully. But when umount is called, the ASSERT btrfs_mark_buffer_dirty() will be triggered because the only node in extent tree has 0 item and invalid owner. It's solved by another commit "btrfs: check extent buffer owner against the owner rootid".
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215299 Reported-by: Wenqing Liu wenqingliu0120@gmail.com CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19+ Signed-off-by: Su Yue l@damenly.su Reviewed-by: David Sterba dsterba@suse.com Signed-off-by: David Sterba dsterba@suse.com
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c index 9fd145f1c4bc..aae5697dde32 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c @@ -1682,6 +1682,7 @@ static int check_leaf(struct extent_buffer *leaf, bool check_item_data) */ for (slot = 0; slot < nritems; slot++) { u32 item_end_expected; + u64 item_data_end; int ret;
btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &key, slot); @@ -1696,6 +1697,8 @@ static int check_leaf(struct extent_buffer *leaf, bool check_item_data) return -EUCLEAN; }
+ item_data_end = (u64)btrfs_item_offset(leaf, slot) + + btrfs_item_size(leaf, slot); /* * Make sure the offset and ends are right, remember that the * item data starts at the end of the leaf and grows towards the @@ -1706,11 +1709,10 @@ static int check_leaf(struct extent_buffer *leaf, bool check_item_data) else item_end_expected = btrfs_item_offset(leaf, slot - 1); - if (unlikely(btrfs_item_data_end(leaf, slot) != item_end_expected)) { + if (unlikely(item_data_end != item_end_expected)) { generic_err(leaf, slot, - "unexpected item end, have %u expect %u", - btrfs_item_data_end(leaf, slot), - item_end_expected); + "unexpected item end, have %llu expect %u", + item_data_end, item_end_expected); return -EUCLEAN; }
@@ -1719,12 +1721,10 @@ static int check_leaf(struct extent_buffer *leaf, bool check_item_data) * just in case all the items are consistent to each other, but * all point outside of the leaf. */ - if (unlikely(btrfs_item_data_end(leaf, slot) > - BTRFS_LEAF_DATA_SIZE(fs_info))) { + if (unlikely(item_data_end > BTRFS_LEAF_DATA_SIZE(fs_info))) { generic_err(leaf, slot, - "slot end outside of leaf, have %u expect range [0, %u]", - btrfs_item_data_end(leaf, slot), - BTRFS_LEAF_DATA_SIZE(fs_info)); + "slot end outside of leaf, have %llu expect range [0, %u]", + item_data_end, BTRFS_LEAF_DATA_SIZE(fs_info)); return -EUCLEAN; }