linux-kernel - [PATCH v5] mm,writeback: fix divide by zero in pos_ratio

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]

Message-ID: <20140430164255.7a753a8e@cuia.bos.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:42:55 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	sandeen@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
	mpatlasov@...allels.com, Motohiro.Kosaki@...fujitsu.com
Subject: [PATCH v5] mm,writeback: fix divide by zero in pos_ratio_polynom

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:13:53 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> This was a consequence of 64->32 truncation and it can't happen any
> more, can it?

Andrew, this is cleaner indeed :)

Masayoshi-san, does the bug still happen with this version, or does
this fix the problem?

---8<---

Subject: mm,writeback: fix divide by zero in pos_ratio_polynom

It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, after
getting truncated to a 32 bit variable, and resulting in a divide
by zero error.

Using the fully 64 bit divide functions avoids this problem.

Also uninline pos_ratio_polynom, at Andrew's request.

Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
---
 mm/page-writeback.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
index ef41349..a4317da 100644
--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -593,14 +593,14 @@ unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, unsigned long dirty)
  * (5) the closer to setpoint, the smaller |df/dx| (and the reverse)
  *     => fast response on large errors; small oscillation near setpoint
  */
-static inline long long pos_ratio_polynom(unsigned long setpoint,
+static long long pos_ratio_polynom(unsigned long setpoint,
 					  unsigned long dirty,
 					  unsigned long limit)
 {
 	long long pos_ratio;
 	long x;
 
-	x = div_s64(((s64)setpoint - (s64)dirty) << RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT,
+	x = div64_s64(((s64)setpoint - (s64)dirty) << RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT,
 		    limit - setpoint + 1);
 	pos_ratio = x;
 	pos_ratio = pos_ratio * x >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@ static unsigned long bdi_position_ratio(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
 	x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + span;
 
 	if (bdi_dirty < x_intercept - span / 4) {
-		pos_ratio = div_u64(pos_ratio * (x_intercept - bdi_dirty),
+		pos_ratio = div64_u64(pos_ratio * (x_intercept - bdi_dirty),
 				    x_intercept - bdi_setpoint + 1);
 	} else
 		pos_ratio /= 4;

--
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/