Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix extent buffer read/write range checks

[Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com>]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 02:36:10PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
>On 2019/7/26 下午2:13, Naohiro Aota wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:38:27AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26.07.19 г. 8:27 ч., Naohiro Aota wrote:
>>>> Several functions to read/write an extent buffer check if specified
>>>> offset
>>>> range resides in the size of the extent buffer. However, those checks
>>>> have
>>>> two problems:
>>>>
>>>> (1) they don't catch "start == eb->len" case.
>>>> (2) it checks offset in extent buffer against logical address using
>>>>     eb->start.
>>>>
>>>> Generally, eb->start is much larger than the offset, so the second
>>>> WARN_ON
>>>> was almost useless.
>>>>
>>>> Fix these problems in read_extent_buffer_to_user(),
>>>> {memcmp,write,memzero}_extent_buffer().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com>
>>>
>>> Qu already sent similar patch:
>>>
>>> [PATCH v2 1/5] btrfs: extent_io: Do extra check for extent buffer read
>>> write functions
>>>
>>>
>>> He centralised the checking code, your >= fixes though should be merged
>>> there.
>>
>> Oops, I missed that series. Thank you for pointing out. Then, this
>> should be merged into Qu's version.
>>
>> Qu, could you pick the change from "start > eb->len" to "start >= eb->len"?
>
> start >= eb->len is not always invalid.
>
> start == eb->len while len == 0 is still valid.

Correct.

But then, we can even say "start > eb->len" is valid if len == 0?

> Or should we also warn such bad practice?

Maybe...

Or how about let the callers bailing out by e.g. "if (!len) return 1;"
in the check function?

Regards,
Naohiro