Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Jan 2020 12:14:02 -0800 | From | Eric Biggers <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] ubifs: don't trigger assertion on invalid no-key filename |
| |
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:30:15PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 02:31:59PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> > > > > If userspace provides an invalid fscrypt no-key filename which encodes a > > hash value with any of the UBIFS node type bits set (i.e. the high 3 > > bits), gracefully report ENOENT rather than triggering ubifs_assert(). > > > > Test case with kvm-xfstests shell: > > > > . fs/ubifs/config > > . ~/xfstests/common/encrypt > > dev=$(__blkdev_to_ubi_volume /dev/vdc) > > ubiupdatevol $dev -t > > mount $dev /mnt -t ubifs > > mkdir /mnt/edir > > xfs_io -c set_encpolicy /mnt/edir > > rm /mnt/edir/_,,,,,DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > > > > With the bug, the following assertion fails on the 'rm' command: > > > > [ 19.066048] UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 379): ubifs_assert_failed: UBIFS assert failed: !(hash & ~UBIFS_S_KEY_HASH_MASK), in fs/ubifs/key.h:170 > > > > Fixes: f4f61d2cc6d8 ("ubifs: Implement encrypted filenames") > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.10+ > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> > > Richard, can you review the two UBIFS patches in this series, and if you're okay > with them, provide Acked-by's so that we can take them through the fscrypt tree? > They don't conflict with anything currently in the UBIFS tree. >
Richard, any objection to us taking these patches through the fscrypt tree?
- Eric
| |