linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: Fix integer overflow check in hugetlbfs_file

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKdjhyD4RVHFVLrcfcuEnvwrjjxAk_GL=kjcm1iw3WTrmmFb9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:57:00 +0800
From:   linke li <lilinke99@...il.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Linke Li <lilinke99@...mail.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        trix@...hat.com, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, nathan@...nel.org,
        muchun.song@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: Fix integer overflow check in hugetlbfs_file_mmap()

> However, if this is a real issue it would make more
> sense to look for and change all such checks rather than one single occurrence.

Hi, Mike. I have checked the example code you provided, and the
difference between
those codes and the patched code is that those checks are checks for
unsigned integer
 overflow, which is well-defined. Only undefined behavior poses a
security risk. So they
 don't need any modifications. I have only found one occurrence of
signed number
overflow so far.

Thank you for your valuable feedback.