linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Sanitize __get_vm

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]

Date:   Sun, 5 Apr 2020 19:23:15 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jroedel@...e.de,
        vbabka@...e.cz, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Sanitize __get_vm_area() arguments

On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 11:25:45PM -0600, William Kucharski wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Apr 4, 2020, at 12:52 PM, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Is there any need to similarly sanitize “size” to assure start + size doesn’t go past “end?”
> >> 
> > Why is that double check needed if all such tests are done deeper on stack?
> 
> If such tests ARE performed, then it doesn't matter to me whether it is checked before or after,
> it just seems that nothing checks whether start + size makes some sort of sense with respect
> to end.
> 
> I admit I didn't walk through all the routines to see if such a check would be superfluous.
> 
Yes, we check it:

<snip>
static __always_inline bool
is_within_this_va(struct vmap_area *va, unsigned long size,
 unsigned long align, unsigned long vstart)
{
 ...
 return (nva_start_addr + size <= va->va_end);
}
<snip>

--
Vlad Rezki