linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] mm/mempolicy: fix the check of nodemask from user

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: <65c0e6cb-28b4-f202-1d7f-278b5dfc3440@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:01:06 +0800
From:   Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <mhocko@...e.com>, <mingo@...nel.org>, <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>, <salls@...ucsb.edu>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] mm/mempolicy: fix the check of nodemask from
 user



On 2017/10/31 17:30, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/27/2017 12:14 PM, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>> +	/*
>> +	 * When the user specified more nodes than supported just check
>> +	 * if the non supported part is all zero.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * If maxnode have more longs than MAX_NUMNODES, check
>> +	 * the bits in that area first. And then go through to
>> +	 * check the rest bits which equal or bigger than MAX_NUMNODES.
>> +	 * Otherwise, just check bits [MAX_NUMNODES, maxnode).
>> +	 */
>>  	if (nlongs > BITS_TO_LONGS(MAX_NUMNODES)) {
>>  		for (k = BITS_TO_LONGS(MAX_NUMNODES); k < nlongs; k++) {
>> -			unsigned long t;
>>  			if (get_user(t, nmask + k))
>>  				return -EFAULT;
>>  			if (k == nlongs - 1) {
>> @@ -1294,6 +1301,16 @@ static int get_nodes(nodemask_t *nodes, const unsigned long __user *nmask,
>>  		endmask = ~0UL;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	if (maxnode > MAX_NUMNODES && MAX_NUMNODES % BITS_PER_LONG != 0) {
>> +		unsigned long valid_mask = endmask;
>> +
>> +		valid_mask &= ~((1UL << (MAX_NUMNODES % BITS_PER_LONG)) - 1);
> 
> I'm not sure if the combination with endmask works in this case:
> 
> 0      BITS_PER_LONG  2xBITS_PER_LONG
> |____________|____________|
>        |             |
>   MAX_NUMNODES      maxnode
> 
> endmask will contain bits between 0 and maxnode

In the case, BITS_TO_LONGS(maxnode) > BITS_TO_LONGS(MAX_NUMNODES), right?
And after checking BITS_PER_LONG to 2xBITS_PER_LONG，endmask will set to
"~0UL". e.g. endmask will be 0xffff ffff ffff ffff if
unsigned long is 64bit.

Then the valid_mask will just contain bits MAX_NUMNODES to BITS_PER_LONG.

Thanks
Yisheng Xie

> but here we want to check bits between MAX_NUMNODES and BITS_PER_LONG
> and endmask should not be mixed up with that?
> 
> 
> Vlastimil
>