[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170816173615.10098-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:36:15 -0600
From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: [PATCH] dax: explain how read(2)/write(2) addresses are validated
Add a comment explaining how the user addresses provided to read(2) and
write(2) are validated in the DAX I/O path. We call dax_copy_from_iter()
or copy_to_iter() on these without calling access_ok() first in the DAX
code, and there was a concern that the user might be able to read/write to
arbitrary kernel addresses with this path.
Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
---
Adding a comment instead of adding redundant access_ok() calls in the DAX
code. If this is the wrong path to take, please let me know.
fs/dax.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
index 8c67517..2d50f32 100644
--- a/fs/dax.c
+++ b/fs/dax.c
@@ -1060,6 +1060,11 @@ dax_iomap_actor(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos, loff_t length, void *data,
if (map_len > end - pos)
map_len = end - pos;
+ /*
+ * The userspace address for the memory copy has already been
+ * validated via access_ok() in either vfs_read() or
+ * vfs_write(), depending on which operation we are doing.
+ */
if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE)
map_len = dax_copy_from_iter(dax_dev, pgoff, kaddr,
map_len, iter);
--
2.9.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists