linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 2/4] ipc/mqueue: correct mq_attr

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

Date:	Tue, 1 May 2012 12:34:30 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 2/4] ipc/mqueue: correct mq_attr_ok test

On Tue,  1 May 2012 13:50:53 -0400
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> wrote:

> While working on the other parts of the mqueue stuff, I noticed that
> the calculation for overflow in mq_attr_ok didn't actually match
> reality (this is especially true since my last patch which changed
> how we account memory slightly).

Please cc Manfred on mqueue things?  He still watches ;)

> In particular, we used to test for overflow using:
>   msgs * msgsize + msgs * sizeof(struct msg_msg *)
> 
> That was never really correct because each message we allocate via
> load_msg() is actually a struct msg_msg followed by the data for
> the message (and if struct msg_msg + data exceeds PAGE_SIZE we end
> up allocating struct msg_msgseg structs too, but accounting for them
> would get really tedious, so let's ignore those...they're only a
> pointer in size anyway).  This patch updates the calculation to be
> more accurate in regards to maximum possible memory consumption by the
> mqueue.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
> +++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
>
> ...
>
> @@ -684,8 +686,11 @@ static int mq_attr_ok(struct ipc_namespace *ipc_ns, struct mq_attr *attr)
>  	/* check for overflow */
>  	if (attr->mq_msgsize > ULONG_MAX/attr->mq_maxmsg)
>  		return 0;
> -	if ((unsigned long)(attr->mq_maxmsg * (attr->mq_msgsize
> -	    + sizeof (struct msg_msg *))) <
> +	mq_treesize = attr->mq_maxmsg * sizeof(struct msg_msg) +
> +		min_t(unsigned int, attr->mq_maxmsg, MQ_PRIO_MAX) *
> +		sizeof(struct posix_msg_tree_node);
> +	if ((unsigned long)(attr->mq_maxmsg * attr->mq_msgsize +
> +			    mq_treesize) <
>  	    (unsigned long)(attr->mq_maxmsg * attr->mq_msgsize))
>  		return 0;
>  	return 1;

That's a bit of a mouthful.  Does this look OK?

--- a/ipc/mqueue.c~ipc-mqueue-correct-mq_attr_ok-test-fix
+++ a/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -672,7 +672,8 @@ static void remove_notification(struct m
 static int mq_attr_ok(struct ipc_namespace *ipc_ns, struct mq_attr *attr)
 {
 	int mq_treesize;
-
+	unsigned long total_size;
+	
 	if (attr->mq_maxmsg <= 0 || attr->mq_msgsize <= 0)
 		return 0;
 	if (capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
@@ -690,9 +691,8 @@ static int mq_attr_ok(struct ipc_namespa
 	mq_treesize = attr->mq_maxmsg * sizeof(struct msg_msg) +
 		min_t(unsigned int, attr->mq_maxmsg, MQ_PRIO_MAX) *
 		sizeof(struct posix_msg_tree_node);
-	if ((unsigned long)(attr->mq_maxmsg * attr->mq_msgsize +
-			    mq_treesize) <
-	    (unsigned long)(attr->mq_maxmsg * attr->mq_msgsize))
+	total_size = attr->mq_maxmsg * attr->mq_msgsize;
+	if (total_size + mq_treesize < total_size)
 		return 0;
 	return 1;
 }
_

--
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/