erofs pointer corruption and kernel crash

[Gao Xiang]

Hi Arseniy,

On 2026/4/10 21:27, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> 
> 
> 10.04.2026 15:20, Gao Xiang пишет:
>>
>>
>> On 2026/4/10 19:37, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>
>> (drop unrelated folks since they all subscribed erofs mailing list)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 10.04.2026 11:31, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 2026/4/10 16:13, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> We found unexpected behaviour of erofs:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is function in erofs - 'erofs_onlinefolio_end()'. It has pointer to
>>>>> 'struct folio' as first argument, and there is loop inside this function,
>>>>> which updates 'private' field of provided folio:
>>>>>
>>>>>      do {
>>>>>              orig = atomic_read((atomic_t *)&folio->private);
>>>>>              DBG_BUGON(orig <= 0);
>>>>>              v = dirty << EROFS_ONLINEFOLIO_DIRTY;
>>>>>              v |= (orig - 1) | (!!err << EROFS_ONLINEFOLIO_EIO);
>>>>>      } while (atomic_cmpxchg((atomic_t *)&folio->private, orig, v) != orig);
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, we see that in some rare case, this function processes folio, where
>>>>> 'private' is pointer, and thus this loop will update some bits in this
>>>>> pointer. Then later kernel dereferences such pointer and crashes.
>>>>>
>>>>> To catch this, the following small debug patch was used (e.g. we check that 'private' field is pointer):
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/erofs/data.c b/fs/erofs/data.c
>>>>> index 33cb0a7330d2..b1d8deffec4d 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/erofs/data.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/erofs/data.c
>>>>> @@ -238,6 +238,11 @@ void erofs_onlinefolio_end(struct folio *folio, int err, bool dirty)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>         int orig, v;
>>>>>     +    if (((uintptr_t)folio->private) & 0xffff000000000000) {
>>>>
>>>> No, if erofs_onlinefolio_end() is called, `folio->private`
>>>> shouldn't be a pointer, it's just a counter inside, and
>>>> storing a pointer is unexpected.
>>>>
>>>> And since the folio is locked, it shouldn't call into
>>>> try_to_free_buffers().
>>>>
>>>> Is it easy to reproduce? if yes, can you print other
>>>> values like `folio->mapping` and `folio->index` as
>>>> well?
>>>>
>>>> I need more informations to find some clues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So reproduced again with this debug patch which adds magic to 'struct z_erofs_pcluster' and prints 'struct folio'
>>> when pointer in 'private' is passed to 'erofs_onlinefolio_end()'. In short - 'private' points to 'struct z_erofs_pcluster'.
>> First, erofs-utils 1.8.10 doesn't support `-E48bit`:
>> only erofs-utils 1.9+ ship it as an experimental
>> feature, see Changelog; so I think you're using
>> modified erofs-utils 1.8.10:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/xiang/erofs-utils.git/tree/ChangeLog
>>
>> ```
>> erofs-utils 1.9
>>
>>   * This release includes the following updates:
>>     - Add 48-bit layout support for larger filesystems (EXPERIMENTAL);
>> ```
>>
>> Second, I'm pretty sure this issue is related to
>> experimenal `-E48bit`, and those information is
>> not enough for me to find the root cause, so I
>> need to find a way to reproduce myself: It may
>> take time; you could debug yourself but I don't
>> think it's an easy task if you don't quite familiar
>> with the EROFS codebase.
>>
>> Anyway I really suggest if you need a rush solution
>> for production, don't use `-E48bit + zstd` like
>> this for now: try to use other options like
>> `-zzstd -C65536 -Efragments` instead since those
>> are common production choices.
> 
> Ok thanks for this advice! One more question: currently we use this options:
> "zstd,22 --max-extent-bytes 65536 -E48bit". Ok we remove "zstd,22" and "E48bit",
> but what about "--max-extent-bytes 65536" - is it considered stable option?
> Or it is better to use your version: "-zzstd -C65536 -Efragments" ?

I'm not sure how you find this
"zstd,22 --max-extent-bytes 65536 -E48bit" combination.

My suggestion based on production is that as long as
you don't use `-zzstd` ++ `-E48bit`, it should be fine.

If you need smaller images, I suggest: `-zlzma,9 -C65536 -Efragments`
Or like Android, they all use `-zlz4hc`,
Or zstd, but don't add `-E48bit`.

As for "--max-extent-bytes 65536", it can be dropped
since if `-E48bit` is not used, it only has negative
impacts.

In short, `-E48bit` + `-zzstd` + `--max-extent-bytes`
enables new unaligned compression for zstd, but it's
a relatively new feature, I still still some time to
stablize it but my own time is limited and all things
are always prioritized.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Thanks
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gao Xiang