[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <db321a38-f5f6-34cd-2f4f-37fc82201798@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:13:23 +0800
From: "libaokun (A)" <libaokun1@...wei.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
<lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org>, <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.14 018/334] nbd: add the check to prevent overflow in
__nbd_ioctl()
在 2021/9/14 7:23, Nick Desaulniers 写道:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:00 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:15 PM Nick Desaulniers
>> <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry wrong diff:
>> Well, this second diff was seriously whitespace-damaged and hard to
>> read, but while it seems to be the same number of lines, it sure looks
>> a lot more readable in this format.
>>
>> Except I think that
>>
>> default: dividend / divisor);
>>
>> should really have parentheses around both of those macro arguments.
>>
>> That's a preexisting problem, but it should be fixed while at it.
> Ok, I'll send a revised v2 based on _Generic; Rasmus can help review
> when he's awake.
>
>> I'm also not sure why that (again, preexisting) BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG()
>> only checks the size of the dividend, not the divisor. Very strange.
>> But probably not worth worrying about.
> I sent a not-yet-applied diff of my not-yet-applied diff. I was
> playing with this last week, and IIRC we had divisors that were less
> than 32b being promoted to int. But I'll test it some more.
How about deleting the check_mul_overflow in the __nbd_ioctl as follows?
diff --git a/drivers/block/nbd.c b/drivers/block/nbd.c
index 5170a630778d..f404e0540476 100644
--- a/drivers/block/nbd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/nbd.c
@@ -1393,7 +1393,6 @@ static int __nbd_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev,
struct nbd_device *nbd,
unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
struct nbd_config *config = nbd->config;
- loff_t bytesize;
switch (cmd) {
case NBD_DISCONNECT:
@@ -1408,9 +1407,10 @@ static int __nbd_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev,
struct nbd_device *nbd,
case NBD_SET_SIZE:
return nbd_set_size(nbd, arg, config->blksize);
case NBD_SET_SIZE_BLOCKS:
- if (check_mul_overflow((loff_t)arg, config->blksize,
&bytesize))
+ if (arg && (LLONG_MAX / arg <= config->blksize))
return -EINVAL;
- return nbd_set_size(nbd, bytesize, config->blksize);
+ return nbd_set_size(nbd, arg * config->blksize,
+ config->blksize);
case NBD_SET_TIMEOUT:
nbd_set_cmd_timeout(nbd, arg);
return 0;
--
2.31.1
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists