[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d29a9ec-027d-06b9-8543-87d386e58c94@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:24:50 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
peterx@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel@...labora.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm/userfaultfd: add VM_WARN_ONCE()
On 16.02.23 10:16, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> Add VM_WARN_ONCE() to uffd_wp_range() to detect range (start, len) abuse.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
> ---
> mm/userfaultfd.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> index 77c5839e591c..d89ed44d2668 100644
> --- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -717,6 +717,8 @@ long uffd_wp_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> struct mmu_gather tlb;
> long ret;
>
> + VM_WARN_ONCE(start < dst_vma->vm_start || start + len > dst_vma->vm_end,
> + "The address range exceeds VMA boundary.\n");
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE is sufficient (sorry for spelling out the wrong variant
earlier).
These kinds of bugs are expected to be found early during testing, still
it might make sense to implement a backup path
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(...))
return -EINVAL;
But we can't use VM_WARN_ON_ONCE here, so we can't compile it out
anymore ... so I guess a simple VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() is sufficient.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists