linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iouring:added boundary value check for io_uring

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: <df87e88a-adf6-4ba1-ba80-baccde2ecc28@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 19:39:40 +0530
From: Subramanya Swamy <subramanya.swamy.linux@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, corbet@....net, asml.silence@...il.com,
 ribalda@...omium.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, bhe@...hat.com,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, matteorizzo@...gle.com, ardb@...nel.org,
 alexghiti@...osinc.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iouring:added boundary value check for io_uring_group
 systl

Hi Jens,

            Thank you for reviewing the patch.

On 17/01/24 03:02, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/15/24 5:49 AM, Subramanya Swamy wrote:
>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> index 09b6d860deba..0ed91b69643d 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> @@ -146,7 +146,9 @@ static void io_queue_sqe(struct io_kiocb *req);
>>   struct kmem_cache *req_cachep;
>>   
>>   static int __read_mostly sysctl_io_uring_disabled;
>> -static int __read_mostly sysctl_io_uring_group = -1;
>> +static unsigned int __read_mostly sysctl_io_uring_group;
>> +static unsigned int min_gid;
>> +static unsigned int max_gid  = 4294967294;  /*4294967294 is the max guid*/
> As per the compile bot, these need to be under CONFIG_SYSCTL. I'd
> recommend just moving them a few lines further down to do that.
>
> I think this would be cleaner:
>
> static unsigned int max_gid = ((gid_t) ~0U) - 1;
>
> however, as it explains why the value is what it is rather than being
> some magic constant.
Will add these changes in v2

-- 
Best Regards
Subramanya