From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m16.mail.126.com (m16.mail.126.com [220.197.31.6]) (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 D5DC1470EAE; Tue, 1 Sep 2026 09:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.6 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788255807; cv=none; b=kYu+hkwA0rB+lRa1T/yv4iaF1tjDXk7tHiSzxaTAoPWZJyKRz8q31ZoXtdMxBvhVUcAV7dfrEqIcRUppoS03NerjuuXQ2vFbayqis/AV/1NmZuwteR1Gi8xunIedMoOmMTIQ0XqzK/3reHCEDXgKRZdpDzEIayRDrodeSmpiglA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788255807; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8F3i9Wn/0v/mjEm0DyIVOyjBEcNTC8A9JEahgMzLC6E=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SvB4aIqeXrD7kKHdU+hum/qHwMmh5jtFr5SuU3jhiAX49YeCzHRmxWxNcd6NzKoxBA5nuiQCyZwOePSy6W1sME9bF5S1jFELlpAIdKlLMcRt2f5ym6iOOF4wgOHEczPPZMkypzo1eLAGk9e3oGUW9uriPQMsSZnXpOICy2seTQ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=126.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=126.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=126.com header.i=@126.com header.b=M4aCcWhS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.6 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=126.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=126.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=126.com header.i=@126.com header.b="M4aCcWhS" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=126.com; s=s110527; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; bh=+Naii0m4j4WRjGuagXu2y3+QSEI8EhJdKgv+tboZimE=; b=M4aCcWhSlzPgWow2NcqsCuXtkTZ09HuJiAQI2QMXAabyV/pY2uZyncbhFwdDXn jKMPLMWB1HGZ7MnzM3e8LQo3gLgra3wPBNO6ekXpSyVDHvXYeiGsfJA36EzbZnBG 3egBQjOTHrJkkqzNzV5bpnwYpdRxqVjnYmHQGAozEx7Yc= Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown []) by gzsmtp5 (Coremail) with SMTP id QCkvCgD3P2+HnZZq5U4QGg--.36184S2; Tue, 01 Sep 2026 17:40:23 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <6A969D6D.6060808@126.com> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 17:39:57 +0800 From: Hongling Zeng User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carlos Maiolino , Hongling Zeng CC: 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 References: <20260824094535.219503-1-zenghongling@kylinos.cn> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID:QCkvCgD3P2+HnZZq5U4QGg--.36184S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoWxWr1xXryxJr15Ww4rWFyfJFb_yoW5uw1xpr saya1Y9rsrJF1IyFnav3W5Ga4fK348JF4Uur4fK3W7ur98Gr1xuryaqFy5W3srArZFva1j 9F45ZrZ7ur45uFJanT9S1TB71UUUUU7qnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07j-SdDUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: x2kr0wpolqwiqxrzqiyswou0bp/xtbBrgfImWqWnYcRZAAA3r 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 > 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. 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 >> >>