Re: [PATCH 0/1] hfs: discuss to add offset/length validation in hfs_brec_lenoff

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2025-08-18 at 22:17 +0800, Chenzhi Yang wrote:
> From: Yang Chenzhi <yang.chenzhi@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> When running syzbot with a crafted HFS/HFS+ disk image containing
> invalid record offsets or lengths, the filesystem may hang. For
> example, in this case syzbot set the header’s second record offset
> to 0x7f00 while node_size is 4096. HFS/HFS+ failed to detect this
> fault, which eventually led to a crash.
> 

HFS has 512 bytes b-tree node size.

> Since HFS/HFS+ makes heavy use of hfs_brec_lenoff, adding manual
> offset/length checks at every call site would be tedious and
> error-prone.
> 

You are mentioning HFS here. But you've shared fix only for HFS+. Are you
planning to share the fix for HFS too?

Thanks,
Slava.

> Instead, it may be more robust to introduce validation directly
> inside hfs_brec_lenoff (or at a similar central point), ensuring
> that all callers can safely rely on the returned offset and length
> without additional checks.
> 
> Yang Chenzhi (1):
>   hfs: validate record offset in hfsplus_bmap_alloc
> 
>  fs/hfsplus/bnode.c      | 41 ----------------------------------------
>  fs/hfsplus/btree.c      |  6 ++++++
>  fs/hfsplus/hfsplus_fs.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux