[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190912165110.GA719@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:51:11 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fork: check exit_signal passed in clone3() call
On 09/11, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
>
> @@ -2562,6 +2564,15 @@ noinline static int copy_clone_args_from_user(struct kernel_clone_args *kargs,
> if (copy_from_user(&args, uargs, size))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> + /*
> + * Two separate checks are needed, as valid_signal() takes unsigned long
> + * as an argument, and struct kernel_clone_args uses int type
> + * for the exit_signal field.
> + */
> + if (unlikely((args.exit_signal > UINT_MAX) ||
> + !valid_signal(args.exit_signal)))
> + return -EINVAL;
OK, I equally agree with this version. Although I'd simply do
if (args.exit_signal > _NSIG)
return -EINVAL;
but this is cosmetic.
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists