linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] block: create ioctl to discard-or-zeroout a range of blocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:30:57 +0000
From:	"Seymour, Shane M" <shane.seymour@....com>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
CC:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] block: create ioctl to discard-or-zeroout a range of
 blocks

> I don't have a device large enough to test for signedness errors, since passing
> huge values for start and len never make it past the i_size_read check.
> However, I do see that I forgot to check the padding values, so I'll update that.

Then do you want to at least consider converting end to be of type loff_t to
match the type of value returned by i_get_size() and the type of the value
passed to truncate_inode_pages_range()? Then you only need one additional
check, something like:

/* Check for an overflow when adding start+len into end */
	if (start > (uint64_t)LLONG_MAX - len)
		return -EINVAL;

Looking at the maximum values if we have start=0 and
len=(uint64_t)LLONG_MAX we would still continue but
len=(uint64_t)LLONG_MAX+1 would return -EINVAL. Similarly for
start=(uint64_t)LLONG_MAX and len=0 it would continue
but start=(uint64_t)LLONG_MAX+1 would return -EINVAL and that 
should allow start + len to be safely added and stored into an loff_t without
overflow. With this check start+len can never be more than (uint64_t)LLONG_MAX
which would make the other checks I suggested to ensure that neither start or end
were more than (uint64_t)LLONG_MAX unnecessary.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/