netdev - Re: [PATCH] sysctl: fix min/max handling in __do_proc_doulongvec

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:	Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:38:22 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"Pekka Savola \(ipv6\)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl: fix min/max handling in __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax()

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:59:03 +0200
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

>> Thats fine by me, thanks Eric.
>> 
>> Andrew, please remove previous patch from your tree and replace it by
>> following one :
>> 
>> [PATCH v2] sysctl: fix min/max handling in __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax()
>> 
>> When proc_doulongvec_minmax() is used with an array of longs,
>> and no min/max check requested (.extra1 or .extra2 being NULL), we
>> dereference a NULL pointer for the second element of the array.
>> 
>> Noticed while doing some changes in network stack for the "16TB problem"
>> 
>> Fix is to not change min & max pointers in
>> __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(), so that all elements of the vector share
>> an unique min/max limit, like proc_dointvec_minmax().
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sysctl.c |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
>> index f88552c..8e45451 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
>> @@ -2485,7 +2485,7 @@ static int __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(void *data, struct ctl_table *table, int
>>  		kbuf[left] = 0;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	for (; left && vleft--; i++, min++, max++, first=0) {
>> +	for (; left && vleft--; i++, first=0) {
>>  		unsigned long val;
>>  
>>  		if (write) {
>
> Did we check to see whether any present callers are passing in pointers
> to arrays of min/max values?

In 2.6.36 there are not any callers that pass in a vector of anything, I
don't know about linux-next.  It looks to me like incrementing min and
max was simply a bug.

> I wonder if there's any documentation for this interface which just
> became wrong.

Or it just became right.  Clearly no one has been expecting min
and max to be vectors.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html