linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.0 13/60] writeback: use |1 instead of +1 to protect against div by zero

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: <20150515231019.224045529@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 May 2015 16:14:14 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.0 13/60] writeback: use |1 instead of +1 to protect against div by zero

4.0-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

commit 464d1387acb94dc43ba772b35242345e3d2ead1b upstream.

mm/page-writeback.c has several places where 1 is added to the divisor
to prevent division by zero exceptions; however, if the original
divisor is equivalent to -1, adding 1 leads to division by zero.

There are three places where +1 is used for this purpose - one in
pos_ratio_polynom() and two in bdi_position_ratio().  The second one
in bdi_position_ratio() actually triggered div-by-zero oops on a
machine running a 3.10 kernel.  The divisor is

  x_intercept - bdi_setpoint + 1 == span + 1

span is confirmed to be (u32)-1.  It isn't clear how it ended up that
but it could be from write bandwidth calculation underflow fixed by
c72efb658f7c ("writeback: fix possible underflow in write bandwidth
calculation").

At any rate, +1 isn't a proper protection against div-by-zero.  This
patch converts all +1 protections to |1.  Note that
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() was already using |1 before this patch.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 mm/page-writeback.c |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ static long long pos_ratio_polynom(unsig
 	long x;

 	x = div64_s64(((s64)setpoint - (s64)dirty) << RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT,
-		    limit - setpoint + 1);
+		      (limit - setpoint) | 1);
 	pos_ratio = x;
 	pos_ratio = pos_ratio * x >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
 	pos_ratio = pos_ratio * x >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
@@ -807,7 +807,7 @@ static unsigned long bdi_position_ratio(
 	 * scale global setpoint to bdi's:
 	 *	bdi_setpoint = setpoint * bdi_thresh / thresh
 	 */
-	x = div_u64((u64)bdi_thresh << 16, thresh + 1);
+	x = div_u64((u64)bdi_thresh << 16, thresh | 1);
 	bdi_setpoint = setpoint * (u64)x >> 16;
 	/*
 	 * Use span=(8*write_bw) in single bdi case as indicated by
@@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ static unsigned long bdi_position_ratio(

 	if (bdi_dirty < x_intercept - span / 4) {
 		pos_ratio = div64_u64(pos_ratio * (x_intercept - bdi_dirty),
-				    x_intercept - bdi_setpoint + 1);
+				      (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/