linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] compat: poll() in 32-bit applications does not handle negative timeout values properly on 64-bit kernels

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4F3D2D30.8070403@akamai.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:22:08 -0600
From:	Josh Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] compat: poll() in 32-bit applications does not
 handle negative timeout values properly on 64-bit kernels

On 02/11/2012 09:47 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le vendredi 10 février 2012 à 23:54 -0600, Josh Hunt a écrit :
>> We have hit an issue where our 32-bit applications using poll() and
>> passing in a value of -1 for the timeout value return after ~49 days
>> (2^32 msec), instead of waiting indefinitely. I've instrumented the
>> kernel and found we are hitting the case where poll() believes we've
>> passed in a positive number and thus creates a timespec, etc. I've
>> implemented compat_sys_poll() to sign-extend the timeout value and
>> resolve the issue.
>>
>> There was an almost identical patch submitted last year, but for
>> whatever reason did not make it in:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/18/19
> 
> Probably because Thomas Meyer didnt answer to patch reviewers, and not
> enough people cared.
> 
> By the way, an inline patch is better, as stated in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> 
> Anyway, its time to fix this bug...
> 
> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> 

I can resubmit the patch inline if you feel that will get more attention
by whoever needs to do the final approval on this.

Josh


--
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/