linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.2 051/164] 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: <lsq.1438473757.542648463@decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 02 Aug 2015 01:02:37 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, "Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org>,
	"Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.2 051/164] writeback: use |1 instead of +1 to protect
 against div by zero

3.2.70-rc1 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: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 mm/page-writeback.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ static unsigned long bdi_position_ratio(
 	 */
 	setpoint = (freerun + limit) / 2;
 	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;
@@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ 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
@@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ 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/