[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220329112011.j4xf2qjktfqokkyn@wittgenstein>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:20:11 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binderfs: Fix the maximum minor value in
binderfs_binder_device_create() and binderfs_binder_ctl_create()
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 01:18:17PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> ida_alloc_max(..., max, ...) returns values from 0 to max, inclusive.
>
> So, BINDERFS_MAX_MINOR is a valid value for 'minor'.
>
> BINDERFS_MAX_MINOR is '1U << MINORBITS' and we have:
> #define MKDEV(ma,mi) (((ma) << MINORBITS) | (mi))
>
> So, When this value is used in MKDEV() and it will overflow.
>
> Fixes: 3ad20fe393b3 ("binder: implement binderfs")
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> ---
> This patch is completely speculative.
>
> The 'BINDERFS_MAX_MINOR_CAPPED - 1' is here only for symmetry with the
> BINDERFS_MAX_MINOR case. I'm not sure at all that is is needed and, more
> importantly, that it is correct.
Hm, since we're "removing" one alloctable device for the initial ipc
namespace, I think we need the -1 for the capped value.
Though I wonder if the simpler fix wouldn't just be to:
#define BINDERFS_MAX_MINOR MINORMASK
since include/linux/kdev_t.h has:
#define MINORBITS 20
#define MINORMASK ((1U << MINORBITS) - 1)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists