linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] md/raid10: fix overflow in safe_delay

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ccd37c99-e47e-b662-2e62-cf13180639fd@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Sun, 14 May 2023 19:18:04 +0800
From:   Li Nan <linan666@...weicloud.com>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, linan666@...weicloud.com,
        song@...nel.org, neilb@...e.de, Rob.Becker@...erbed.com
Cc:     linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com, houtao1@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] md/raid10: fix overflow in safe_delay_store



在 2023/5/6 10:00, Yu Kuai 写道:
> Hi,
> 
> 在 2023/05/06 9:23, linan666@...weicloud.com 写道:
>> From: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
>>
>> There is no input check when echo md/safe_mode_delay, and overflow will
>> occur. There is risk of overflow in strict_strtoul_scaled(), too. Fix it
>> by using kstrtoul instead of parsing word one by one.
> 
> Other than some nits below, this patch looks good to me,
> feel free to add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>
>> Fixes: 72e02075a33f ("md: factor out parsing of fixed-point numbers")
>> Signed-off-by: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/md/md.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>   1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>> index 8e344b4b3444..fd5c3babcd6d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>> @@ -3767,52 +3767,74 @@ static int analyze_sbs(struct mddev *mddev)
>>    */
>>   int strict_strtoul_scaled(const char *cp, unsigned long *res, int 
>> scale)
>>   {
>> -    unsigned long result = 0;
>> -    long decimals = -1;
>> -    while (isdigit(*cp) || (*cp == '.' && decimals < 0)) {
>> -        if (*cp == '.')
>> -            decimals = 0;
>> -        else if (decimals < scale) {
>> -            unsigned int value;
>> -            value = *cp - '0';
>> -            result = result * 10 + value;
>> -            if (decimals >= 0)
>> -                decimals++;
>> -        }
>> -        cp++;
>> -    }
>> -    if (*cp == '\n')
>> -        cp++;
>> -    if (*cp)
>> +    unsigned long result = 0, decimals = 0;
>> +    char *pos, *str;
>> +    int rv;
>> +
>> +    str = kmemdup_nul(cp, strlen(cp), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +    if (!str)
>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>> +    pos = strchr(str, '.');
>> +    if (pos) {
>> +        int cnt = scale;
>> +
>> +        *pos = '\0';
>> +        while (isdigit(*(++pos))) {
>> +            if (cnt) {
>> +                decimals = decimals * 10 + *pos - '0';
>> +                cnt--;
>> +            }
>> +        }
>> +        if (*pos == '\n')
>> +            pos++;
>> +        if (*pos) {
>> +            kfree(str);
>> +            return -EINVAL;
>> +        }
>> +        decimals *= int_pow(10, cnt);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    rv = kstrtoul(str, 10, &result);
>> +    kfree(str);
>> +    if (rv)
>> +        return rv;
>> +
>> +    if (result > (ULONG_MAX - decimals) / (unsigned int)int_pow(10, 
>> scale))
> 
> This is correct, I guess the reason to use unsigned int is that u64/u64
> will compile error in some 32-bit architecture. It's better to use
> div64_u64() here.
> 
>>           return -EINVAL;
>> -    if (decimals < 0)
>> -        decimals = 0;
>> -    *res = result * int_pow(10, scale - decimals);
>> -    return 0;
>> +    *res = result * int_pow(10, scale) + decimals;
>> +
>> +    return rv;
>>   }
>>   static ssize_t
>>   safe_delay_show(struct mddev *mddev, char *page)
>>   {
>> -    int msec = (mddev->safemode_delay*1000)/HZ;
>> -    return sprintf(page, "%d.%03d\n", msec/1000, msec%1000);
>> +    unsigned int msec = ((unsigned long)mddev->safemode_delay*1000)/HZ;
>> +
>> +    return sprintf(page, "%u.%03u\n", msec/1000, msec%1000);
>>   }
>>   static ssize_t
>>   safe_delay_store(struct mddev *mddev, const char *cbuf, size_t len)
>>   {
>>       unsigned long msec;
>> +    int ret;
>>       if (mddev_is_clustered(mddev)) {
>>           pr_warn("md: Safemode is disabled for clustered mode\n");
>>           return -EINVAL;
>>       }
>> -    if (strict_strtoul_scaled(cbuf, &msec, 3) < 0)
>> +    ret = strict_strtoul_scaled(cbuf, &msec, 3);
>> +    if (ret < 0)
>> +        return ret;
>> +    if (msec > UINT_MAX)
>>           return -EINVAL;
>> +
>>       if (msec == 0)
>>           mddev->safemode_delay = 0;
>>       else {
>>           unsigned long old_delay = mddev->safemode_delay;
>> +        /* HZ <= 1000, so new_delay < UINT_MAX, too */
> 
> new_delay <= UNIT_MAX
> 
>>           unsigned long new_delay = (msec*HZ)/1000;
> 
> There is no need do declare them as 'unsigned long', you can use
> 'unsigned int' directly now.
> 
> And you can also use DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP() directly here.
> 

I will fix it in v3.

> Thanks,
> Kuai
>>           if (new_delay == 0)
>>
> 
> .

-- 
Thanks,
Nan