linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] aio: make sure the input "timeout" value is valid

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: <20180102145155.GD8222@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jan 2018 06:51:55 -0800
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
Cc:     Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tianhong Ding <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        Libin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] aio: make sure the input "timeout" value is valid

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:18:30AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2017/12/14 3:31, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:27:00AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 09:42:52PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >>>> Below information is reported by a lower kernel version, and I saw the
> >>>> problem still exist in current version.
> >>>
> >>> I think you're right, but what an awful interface we have here!
> >>> The user must not only fetch it, they must validate it separately?
> >>> And if they forget, then userspace is provoking undefined behaviour?  Ugh.
> >>> Why not this:
> >>
> >> Why not go a step further and have get_timespec64 check for validity?
> >> I wonder what caller doesn't want that to happen...
> I tried this before. But I found some places call get_timespec64 in the following function.
> If we do the check in get_timespec64, the check will be duplicated.
> 
> For example:
> static long do_pselect(int n, fd_set __user *inp, fd_set __user *outp,
> ....
> 	if (get_timespec64(&ts, tsp))
> 		return -EFAULT;
> 
> 	to = &end_time;
> 	if (poll_select_set_timeout(to, ts.tv_sec, ts.tv_nsec))
> 
> int poll_select_set_timeout(struct timespec64 *to, time64_t sec, long nsec)
> {
> 	struct timespec64 ts = {.tv_sec = sec, .tv_nsec = nsec};
> 
> 	if (!timespec64_valid(&ts))
> 		return -EINVAL;

The check is only two comparisons!  Why do we have an interface that can
cause bugs for the sake of saving *two comparisons*?!  Can we talk about
the cost of a cache miss versus the cost of executing these comparisons?