[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ec837a5-4e54-b5a2-fd53-a6d7845fb5d7@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 22:12:11 +0800
From: zhongjinghua <zhongjinghua@...wei.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Zhong Jinghua <zhongjinghua@...weicloud.com>
CC: <axboe@...nel.dk>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
<yukuai3@...wei.com>, <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>,
<yangerkun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] block: Fix the partition start may overflow in
add_partition()
在 2023/5/25 16:55, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 03:06:15PM +0800, Zhong Jinghua wrote:
>> + if (p.start < 0 || p.length <= 0 || p.start + p.length < 0)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> start = p.start >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
>> length = p.length >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
>>
>> + /* length may be equal to 0 after right shift */
>> + if (!length || start + length > get_capacity(bdev->bd_disk))
>> + return -EINVAL;
> While we're at it, shouldn't these be switched to use
> check_add_overflow?
However, using check_add_overflow requires the introduction of an
additional local variable for the third parameter, which does not make
much difference to the current check. Is it worth it?
e.g:
diff --git a/block/ioctl.c b/block/ioctl.c
index 3223ea862523..9a40e8f864cb 100644
--- a/block/ioctl.c
+++ b/block/ioctl.c
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static int blkpg_do_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev,
{
struct gendisk *disk = bdev->bd_disk;
struct blkpg_partition p;
- long long start, length;
+ long long start, length, tmp_check;
if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
return -EACCES;
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static int blkpg_do_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev,
if (op == BLKPG_DEL_PARTITION)
return bdev_del_partition(disk, p.pno);
- if (p.start < 0 || p.length <= 0 || p.start + p.length < 0)
+ if (p.start < 0 || p.length <= 0 || check_add_overflow(p.start,
p.length, &tmp_check))
return -EINVAL;
start = p.start >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
Or do you have a better idea?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists