[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202101111149.20A58E1@keescook>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:50:49 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mcgrof@...nel.org,
yzaikin@...gle.com, adobriyan@...il.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, vbabka@...e.cz, wangle6@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] proc_sysctl: fix oops caused by incorrect command
parameters.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:21:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 11-01-21 11:48:19, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
> [...]
> > patch3:
> > +++ b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> > @@ -1770,6 +1770,9 @@ static int process_sysctl_arg(char *param, char *val,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > + if (!val)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > /*
> > * To set sysctl options, we use a temporary mount of proc, look up the
> > * respective sys/ file and write to it. To avoid mounting it when no
> >
> > sysctl log for patch3:
> > Setting sysctl args: `' invalid for parameter `hung_task_panic'
> [...]
> > When process_sysctl_arg() is called, the param parameter may not be the
> > sysctl parameter.
> >
> > Patch3 or patch4, which is better?
>
> Patch3
Oh, I see the issue here -- I thought we were only calling
process_sysctl_arg() with valid sysctl fields. It looks like we're not,
which means it should silently ignore everything that isn't a sysctl
field, and only return -EINVAL when it IS a sysctl but it lacks a value.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists