[SRU][Focal, hwe-5.8][PATCH 0/2] CVE-2019-19449

[Luke Nowakowski-Krijger]

Yes this is for both focal:linux and focal:linux-hwe-5.8. I knew that it
would be a bit ambiguous so I put the comma instead of the slash but I can
see that did not help at all. In the future is it just better to separate
them like [F][F/hwe-5.8]? At least that is unambiguous :)

- Luke

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 1:39 AM Stefan Bader <stefan.bader at canonical.com>
wrote:

> On 30.09.21 01:57, Luke Nowakowski-Krijger wrote:
> > [Impact]
> > Mounting a crafted f2fs file system with a segment count in a section
> > that is less than segs_per_sec causes out-of-boundary memory access
> > during fs initalization.
> >
> > [Test case]
> > Reproduced bug with syzbot reproducer
> > (https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=102fbac5900000)
> > with slight modification to target a valid loop device.
> > Confirmed that after the patches were applied the fs reports that there
> > are malformed segments/sections and mounting the file system fails,
> > which stops the initialization from continuing and preventing the
> > out-of-boundary memory access.
> >
> > [Potential regression]
> > The patches add checks that are a superset of the previous checks, which
> > might cause some filesystems that succeeded in mounting to now fail.
> >
> > Chao Yu (1):
> >    f2fs: fix to do sanity check on segment/section count
> >
> > Wang Xiaojun (1):
> >    f2fs: fix wrong total_sections check and fsmeta check
> >
> >   fs/f2fs/segment.h |  1 +
> >   fs/f2fs/super.c   | 14 ++++++++++----
> >   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> Double checking because in that combination it is not fully clear:
>
> this is for focal:linux AND focal:linux-hwe-5.8?
>
> -Stefan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20210930/8218486c/attachment.html>