[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210716171837.69bcc1b6@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:18:37 +0300
From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
syzbot <syzbot+e68c89a9510c159d9684@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in profile_init
On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 23:10:25 +0900
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> On 2021/07/16 21:24, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> > But this function can be called not only from sysfs and I can't
> > understand will my patch break something or not. And, I think, error
> > message is needed somewhere here to inform callers about wrong shift
> > value.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Subsequent profiling_store() attempts will return -EEXIST if
> profile_setup() once set prof_on to non-zero value. Therefore,
> if you try to return -EINVAL when profile_setup() returns 0,
> you need to make sure that prof_on is set to non-zero value
> only if prof_shift is valid.
>
> But, the userspace might not be aware of the value of MAX_PROF_SHIFT
> because it is an architecture dependent value, and par might become
> negative value because get_option() accepts negative value.
> Therefore, it might be better to
>
> + par = clamp(par, 0, MAX_PROF_SHIFT - 1);
>
> than
>
> + if (par < 0 || par >= MAX_PROF_SHIFT)
> + return 0;
>
> .
>
Yes, this sounds much better, thank you. I will send reworked patch to
syzbot. Do you mind if I add
Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
tag to final patch?
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists