[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZmhqFLdCW6aXriqP@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:15:32 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Roman Smirnov <r.smirnov@....ru>
Cc: "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Karina Yankevich <k.yankevich@....ru>,
"lvc-patches@...uxtesting.org" <lvc-patches@...uxtesting.org>,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
Subject: Re: [bug report] block: integer overflow in __bvec_gap_to_prev()
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 02:23:48PM +0000, Roman Smirnov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> There is a case of integer overflow in __bvec_gap_to_prev():
>
> ((bprv->bv_offset + bprv->bv_len) & lim->virt_boundary_mask);
>
> bio_vec can cross multiple pages:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190215111324.30129-1-ming.lei@redhat.com/t/
>
> So, in case bio has one bio_vec bv_len can have a maximum value of UINT_MAX.
> The check happens in bio_full(). In the case when bv_len is equal to
> UINT_MAX and bv_offset is greater than zero, an overflow may occur.
Does it matter? The lower bits checked against the mask should be the
same regardless of overflow.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists