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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a4a786c0-85f5-a134-bcd0-ace8edf7762a@huawei.com> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:03:54 +0800 From: linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com> To: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg> CC: <wensong@...ux-vs.org>, <horms@...ge.net.au>, <pablo@...filter.org>, <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>, <fw@...len.de>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org>, <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, <coreteam@...filter.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Mingfangsen <mingfangsen@...wei.com>, <liujie165@...wei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ipvs:set sock send/receive buffer correctly On 2019/4/22 2:48, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, linmiaohe wrote: > >> From: Jie Liu <liujie165@...wei.com> >> >> If we set sysctl_wmem_max or sysctl_rmem_max larger than INT_MAX, the >> send/receive buffer of sock will be an negative value. Same as when >> the val is larger than INT_MAX/2. >> >> Fixes: 1c003b1580e2 ("ipvs: wakeup master thread") >> Reported-by: Qiang Ning <ningqiang1@...wei.com> >> Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> >> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu <liujie165@...wei.com> > > Looks good to me, thanks! > > Acked-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg> > >> --- >> net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c >> index 2526be6b3d90..760f3364d4a2 100644 >> --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c >> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c >> @@ -1278,14 +1278,22 @@ static void set_sock_size(struct sock *sk, int mode, int val) >> /* setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, &val, sizeof(val)); */ >> lock_sock(sk); >> if (mode) { >> - val = clamp_t(int, val, (SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF + 1) / 2, >> - sysctl_wmem_max); >> - sk->sk_sndbuf = val * 2; >> + val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_wmem_max); >> + >> + /* Ensure val * 2 fits into an int, to prevent max_t() >> + * from treating it as a negative value. >> + */ >> + val = min_t(int, val, INT_MAX / 2); >> + sk->sk_sndbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF); >> sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_SNDBUF_LOCK; >> } else { >> - val = clamp_t(int, val, (SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF + 1) / 2, >> - sysctl_rmem_max); >> - sk->sk_rcvbuf = val * 2; >> + val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_rmem_max); >> + >> + /* Ensure val * 2 fits into an int, to prevent max_t() >> + * from treating it as a negative value. >> + */ >> + val = min_t(int, val, INT_MAX / 2); >> + sk->sk_rcvbuf = max_t(int, val * 2, SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF); >> sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK; >> } >> release_sock(sk); >> -- > > Regards > > -- > Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg> > > . > Hi all, Could you please tell me if there is still any problem? Many thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists