Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfsd: reject out-of-range nseconds in setattr atime/mtime

Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.nfs
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, 2026-06-12 at 14:05 +0800, robbieko wrote:
> From: Robbie Ko <robbieko-UelDjCVBxVpWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>
> 
> A client can send a SETATTR (and, for NFSv3, a file creation) carrying
> an atime or mtime whose nseconds field is out of range. The value is
> well-formed on the wire and decodes cleanly into a valid uint32, but it
> is not a valid timespec64: tv_nsec must be less than NSEC_PER_SEC.
> 
> Nothing in the path clamps it. notify_change() runs the time through
> timestamp_truncate(), which does not reduce tv_nsec below NSEC_PER_SEC
> when the filesystem supports nanosecond granularity (s_time_gran == 1),
> and the inode atime/mtime setters store it verbatim (only ctime is
> normalized, via inode_set_ctime_to_ts()).
> 
> The un-normalized value then corrupts on-disk metadata. ext4's
> ext4_encode_extra_time() shifts tv_nsec left by EXT4_EPOCH_BITS; an
> out-of-range value overflows the 32-bit extra field and clobbers the
> seconds-epoch bits, so the stored seconds (and thus the year) are wrong
> on read-back. XFS with bigtime mis-stores the timestamp for the same
> reason. There is no WARN_ON anywhere in the path to catch it.
> 
> Validate the client-supplied atime/mtime in nfsd_setattr(), which is
> the common choke point for SETATTR and for the create paths (via
> nfsd_create_setattr()), and covers both NFSv2 and NFSv3. The check is
> done up front, before any resources are acquired, so no cleanup path is
> involved; RFC 1813 Section 2.6 leaves error precedence to the
> implementation. Return NFS3ERR_INVAL (NFSERR_INVAL for NFSv2), which
> RFC 1813 lists for SETATTR and describes as the error for a value the
> server 'can not store ... in its own representation'. The client maps
> this to EINVAL.
> 
> Only client-supplied times are checked: SET_TO_SERVER_TIME requests
> carry no client value and are filled in by the server. The NFSv2 Sun
> 'set both to now' convention clears ATTR_[AM]TIME_SET in the SETATTR
> proc before nfsd_setattr() runs, so it is unaffected. The sattrguard3
> ctime is deliberately left alone: an out-of-range guard simply never
> matches the object's ctime and yields NFS3ERR_NOT_SYNC via the existing
> guardtime comparison, which is the protocol-correct outcome rather than
> rejecting the request.
> 
> NFSv4 already rejects such values in nfsd4_decode_nfstime4(), so they do
> not reach this check on that path.
> 
> The lack of validation is long-standing and predates the git history of
> this code, so no Fixes: tag is provided. This is a data-integrity fix
> and is a candidate for LTS backport.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko-UelDjCVBxVpWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>
> ---
>  fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> index eafdf7b7890f..763ef2e8dba5 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/vfs.c
> @@ -515,6 +515,20 @@ nfsd_setattr(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp,
>  
>  	trace_nfsd_vfs_setattr(rqstp, fhp, iap, guardtime);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Reject a client-supplied atime or mtime whose tv_nsec is out of
> +	 * range. Such a value is well-formed on the wire but is not a valid
> +	 * timespec64; storing it verbatim can corrupt on-disk timestamps
> +	 * (for example, ext4 packs tv_nsec << 2 alongside epoch bits).
> +	 * Reject it before acquiring any resources. RFC 1813 Section 2.6
> +	 * leaves error precedence to the implementation.
> +	 */
> +	if (((iap->ia_valid & ATTR_ATIME_SET) &&
> +	     (u32)iap->ia_atime.tv_nsec >= NSEC_PER_SEC) ||
> +	    ((iap->ia_valid & ATTR_MTIME_SET) &&
> +	     (u32)iap->ia_mtime.tv_nsec >= NSEC_PER_SEC))
> +		return nfserr_inval;
> +
>  	if (iap->ia_valid & ATTR_SIZE) {
>  		accmode |= NFSD_MAY_WRITE|NFSD_MAY_OWNER_OVERRIDE;
>  		ftype = S_IFREG;


Sashiko had some review comments on this series that you should take a
look at:

https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=2
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.