[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5f88a029-b783-4a47-ac7f-9e1ed6605229@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 16:30:40 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>
Cc: kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, "open list:MEMORY MAPPING" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/mremap: fix regression in vrm->new_addr check
On 8/28/25 16:26, Carlos Llamas wrote:
> Commit 3215eaceca87 ("mm/mremap: refactor initial parameter sanity
> checks") moved the sanity check for vrm->new_addr from mremap_to() to
> check_mremap_params().
>
> However, this caused a regression as vrm->new_addr is now checked even
> when MREMAP_FIXED and MREMAP_DONTUNMAP flags are not specified. In this
> case, vrm->new_addr can be garbage and create unexpected failures.
>
> Fix this by moving the new_addr check after the vrm_implies_new_addr()
> guard. This ensures that the new_addr is only checked when the user has
> specified one explicitly.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Not necessary, but for mm-hotfixes please, Andrew.
> Fixes: 3215eaceca87 ("mm/mremap: refactor initial parameter sanity checks")
> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>
Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> ---
> v2:
> - split out vrm->new_len into individual checks
> - cc stable, collect tags
>
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250828032653.521314-1-cmllamas@google.com/
>
> mm/mremap.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
> index e618a706aff5..35de0a7b910e 100644
> --- a/mm/mremap.c
> +++ b/mm/mremap.c
> @@ -1774,15 +1774,18 @@ static unsigned long check_mremap_params(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
> if (!vrm->new_len)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - /* Is the new length or address silly? */
> - if (vrm->new_len > TASK_SIZE ||
> - vrm->new_addr > TASK_SIZE - vrm->new_len)
> + /* Is the new length silly? */
> + if (vrm->new_len > TASK_SIZE)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* Remainder of checks are for cases with specific new_addr. */
> if (!vrm_implies_new_addr(vrm))
> return 0;
>
> + /* Is the new address silly? */
> + if (vrm->new_addr > TASK_SIZE - vrm->new_len)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> /* The new address must be page-aligned. */
> if (offset_in_page(vrm->new_addr))
> return -EINVAL;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists