[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=ov5B6LTB+fXHAsVkw-qW7QrnJ1y-nEzWOxPK_KKm7hGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:58:13 -0500
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Naotaka Hamaguchi <n.hamaguchi@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mmap system call does not return EOVERFLOW
> To fix this bug, it is necessary to compare "off" plus "len"
> with "off" by units of "off_t". The patch is here:
>
> Signed-off-by: Naotaka Hamaguchi <n.hamaguchi@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> mm/mmap.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index eae90af..e74e736 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -948,6 +948,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> vm_flags_t vm_flags;
> int error;
> unsigned long reqprot = prot;
> + off_t off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> /*
> * Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC?
> @@ -971,7 +972,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> /* offset overflow? */
> - if ((pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT)) < pgoff)
> + if ((off + len) < off)
> return -EOVERFLOW;
Hmm...
pgoff doesn't make actual overflow. do_mmap_pgoff() can calculate big
value. We have
no reason to make artificial limit. Why don't you meke a overflow
check in sys_mmap()?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists