[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4630dd7797fc7934f98c01ea789105a8@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 11:21:39 +0100
From: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@...e.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/vmalloc: fix size check for
remap_vmalloc_range_partial()
On 2019-01-04 10:38, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
>> >
>> > OK, my response was more confusing than I intended. I meant to say. Is
>> > there any in kernel code that would allow the bug have had in mind?
>> > In other words can userspace trick any existing code?
>>
>> In theory any existing caller of remap_vmalloc_range() which does
>> not have an explicit size check should trigger an oops, e.g. this is
>> a good candidate:
>>
>> *** drivers/media/usb/stkwebcam/stk-webcam.c:
>> v4l_stk_mmap[789] ret = remap_vmalloc_range(vma,
>> sbuf->buffer,
>> 0);
>
> Hmm, sbuf->buffer is allocated in stk_setup_siobuf to have
> buf->v4lbuf.length. mmap callback maps this buffer to the vma size and
> that is indeed not enforced to be <= length AFAICS. So you are right!
>
> Can we have an example in the changelog please?
You mean to resend this particular patch with the list of possible
candidates for oops in a comment message? Sure thing.
--
Roman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists