[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wq0j2yhe.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 11:46:21 +0200
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: "Reese Faucette" <reesefaucette@...il.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] overflow check calculation in mm/mmap.c is incorrect linux-3.12.38
On Thu, Apr 30 2015, "Reese Faucette" <reesefaucette@...il.com> wrote:
> When checking for overflow, the code in mm/mmap.c compares the first byte
> *after* the end of mapped region to the start of the region instead of the
> last byte of the mapped region. This prevents mapping a region which abuts
> the end of physical space, as mmap() incorrectly rejects the region with
> -EOVERFLOW, because pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT) will be 0, which is <
> pgoff.
Note this comment elsewhere in mmap.c:
* We don't check here for the merged mmap wrapping around the end of pagecache
* indices (16TB on ia32) because do_mmap_pgoff() does not permit mmap's which
* wrap, nor mmaps which cover the final page at index -1UL.
So it seems to be by design.
But I'm also a little confused, since pgoff should be in units of pages (so a
20 bit number on 32bit), and I can't see how adding another 20 bit
number could ever make that overflow. Unless of course some magic power
ensures that pgoffs in the high half get sign-extended.
Rasmus
--
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