CVE-2024-56548

CVE-2024-56548

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: hfsplus: don't query the device logical block size multiple times Devices block sizes may change. One of these cases is a loop device by using ioctl LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE. While this may cause other issues like IO being rejected, in the case of hfsplus, it will allocate a block by using that size and potentially write out-of-bounds when hfsplus_read_wrapper calls hfsplus_submit_bio and the latter function reads a different io_size. Using a new min_io_size initally set to sb_min_blocksize works for the purposes of the original fix, since it will be set to the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and the first seen logical block size. We still use the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and min_io_size in case the latter is not initialized. Tested by mounting an hfsplus filesystem with loop block sizes 512, 1024 and 4096. The produced KASAN report before the fix looks like this: [ 419.944641] ============================...

CVE-2024-56548

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: hfsplus: don't query the device logical block size multiple times Devices block sizes may change. One of these cases is a loop device by using ioctl LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE. While this may cause other issues like IO being rejected, in the case of hfsplus, it will allocate a block by using that size and potentially write out-of-bounds when hfsplus_read_wrapper calls hfsplus_submit_bio and the latter function reads a different io_size. Using a new min_io_size initally set to sb_min_blocksize works for the purposes of the original fix, since it will be set to the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and the first seen logical block size. We still use the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and min_io_size in case the latter is not initialized. Tested by mounting an hfsplus filesystem with loop block sizes 512, 1024 and 4096. The produced KASAN report before the fix looks like this: [ 419.944641] ===================================...

CVE-2024-56548

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: hfsplus: don't query the device logical block size multiple times Devices block sizes may change. One of these cases is a loop device by using ioctl LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE. While this may cause other issues like IO being rejected, in the case of hfsplus, it will allocate a block by using that size and potentially write out-of-bounds when hfsplus_read_wrapper calls hfsplus_submit_bio and the latter function reads a different io_size. Using a new min_io_size initally set to sb_min_blocksize works for the purposes of the original fix, since it will be set to the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and the first seen logical block size. We still use the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and min_io_size in case the latter is not initialized. Tested by mounting an hfsplus filesystem with loop block sizes 512, 1024 and 4096. The produced KASAN report before the fix looks like this: [ 419.944641] ===============================

CVE-2024-56548

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: h ...

GHSA-64p7-wm49-vgg4

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: hfsplus: don't query the device logical block size multiple times Devices block sizes may change. One of these cases is a loop device by using ioctl LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE. While this may cause other issues like IO being rejected, in the case of hfsplus, it will allocate a block by using that size and potentially write out-of-bounds when hfsplus_read_wrapper calls hfsplus_submit_bio and the latter function reads a different io_size. Using a new min_io_size initally set to sb_min_blocksize works for the purposes of the original fix, since it will be set to the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and the first seen logical block size. We still use the max between HFSPLUS_SECTOR_SIZE and min_io_size in case the latter is not initialized. Tested by mounting an hfsplus filesystem with loop block sizes 512, 1024 and 4096. The produced KASAN report before the fix looks like this: [ 419.944641] ============================...