linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/file: fix the check in find_next

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: <20240529190328.GP2118490@ZenIV>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 20:03:28 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Yuntao Wang <yuntao.wang@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/file: fix the check in find_next_fd()

On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 12:06:56AM +0800, Yuntao Wang wrote:
> The maximum possible return value of find_next_zero_bit(fdt->full_fds_bits,
> maxbit, bitbit) is maxbit. This return value, multiplied by BITS_PER_LONG,
> gives the value of bitbit, which can never be greater than maxfd, it can
> only be equal to maxfd at most, so the following check 'if (bitbit > maxfd)'
> will never be true.
> 
> Moreover, when bitbit equals maxfd, it indicates that there are no unused
> fds, and the function can directly return.
> 
> Fix this check.

Hmm...  The patch is correct, AFAICS.  I _think_ what happened is that
Linus decided to play it safe around the last word.  In the reality
->max_fds is always a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG, so there's no boundary
effects - a word can not cross the ->max_fds boundary, so "no zero
bits in full_fds_bits under max_fds/BITS_PER_LONG" does mean there's
no point checking in range starting at round_down(max_fds, BITS_PER_LONG).

Perhaps a comment along the lines of

        unsigned int maxfd = fdt->max_fds; // always a multiple of BITS_PER_LONG

would be useful in there...