fs/splice.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
The function iter_file_splice_write() calls pipe_buf_release() which has
a nullptr dereference in ops->release. Add check for buf->ops not null
before calling pipe_buf_release().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Yang <danielyangkang@gmail.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+d2125fcb6aa8c4276fd2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d2125fcb6aa8c4276fd2
Fixes: 2df86547b23d ("netfs: Cut over to using new writeback code")
---
fs/splice.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
index 06232d7e5..b8c503e47 100644
--- a/fs/splice.c
+++ b/fs/splice.c
@@ -756,7 +756,8 @@ iter_file_splice_write(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, struct file *out,
if (ret >= buf->len) {
ret -= buf->len;
buf->len = 0;
- pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf);
+ if (buf->ops)
+ pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf);
tail++;
pipe->tail = tail;
if (pipe->files)
--
2.39.2
On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 12:42:39AM -0800, Daniel Yang wrote: > The function iter_file_splice_write() calls pipe_buf_release() which has > a nullptr dereference in ops->release. Add check for buf->ops not null > before calling pipe_buf_release(). > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Yang <danielyangkang@gmail.com> > Reported-by: syzbot+d2125fcb6aa8c4276fd2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d2125fcb6aa8c4276fd2 > Fixes: 2df86547b23d ("netfs: Cut over to using new writeback code") > --- > fs/splice.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c > index 06232d7e5..b8c503e47 100644 > --- a/fs/splice.c > +++ b/fs/splice.c > @@ -756,7 +756,8 @@ iter_file_splice_write(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, struct file *out, > if (ret >= buf->len) { > ret -= buf->len; > buf->len = 0; > - pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf); > + if (buf->ops) > + pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf); > tail++; > pipe->tail = tail; > if (pipe->files) Wait a minute. If nothing else, all those buffers should've passed through pipe_buf_confirm() just prior to the call of ->write_iter(); just what had managed to zero their ->ops and what else had that whatever it had been done to them? Note that pipe must've been held locked all along, so I suspect that we ended up with ->write_iter() claiming to have consumed more than it had been given. That could've ended up with the second loop running around the pipe->bufs[], having already emptied each of them and trying to find where the hell had that extra data come from. I'd suggest checking which ->write_iter() instance had been called and hunting for bogus return values in there. Again, ->write_iter(iocb, from) should never return more than the value of iov_iter_count(from) prior to the call; any instance told "write those 42 bytes" should never reply with "here, I've written 69 of them", lest it confuses the living fuck out of the callers.
On Mon 04-11-24 00:42:39, Daniel Yang wrote: > The function iter_file_splice_write() calls pipe_buf_release() which has > a nullptr dereference in ops->release. Add check for buf->ops not null > before calling pipe_buf_release(). > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Yang <danielyangkang@gmail.com> > Reported-by: syzbot+d2125fcb6aa8c4276fd2@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d2125fcb6aa8c4276fd2 > Fixes: 2df86547b23d ("netfs: Cut over to using new writeback code") > --- > fs/splice.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c > index 06232d7e5..b8c503e47 100644 > --- a/fs/splice.c > +++ b/fs/splice.c > @@ -756,7 +756,8 @@ iter_file_splice_write(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, struct file *out, > if (ret >= buf->len) { > ret -= buf->len; > buf->len = 0; > - pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf); > + if (buf->ops) > + pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf); Umm, already released pipe buf? How would it get here? We have filled the buffers shortly before so IMHO it indicates some deeper problem. Can you please explain a bit more? Honza > tail++; > pipe->tail = tail; > if (pipe->files) > -- > 2.39.2 > -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CR
> > - pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf); > > + if (buf->ops) > > + pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf); > > Umm, already released pipe buf? How would it get here? If you're talking about the pipe_buf_release before the if statement, that line is a - not a + so I basically just added the if statement before release to check that buf->ops does not get deterrences in pipe_buf_release while null. It's the same two lines as when pipe is released in splice_direct_to_actor. > We have filled the > buffers shortly before so IMHO it indicates some deeper problem. Can you > please explain a bit more? I just worked off of this crash log: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=CrashReport&x=16adfaa7980000 If the buffer is filled before, does that mean the issue would be in do_send_file or do_splice_direct?
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.