All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Naotaka Hamaguchi <n.hamaguchi@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm: mmap() sometimes succeeds even if the region to map is invalid.
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:43:05 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F3E1319.6050304@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)

This patch fixes two bugs of mmap():
 1. mmap() succeeds even if "offset" argument is a negative value, although
    it should return EINVAL in such case. Currently I have only checked
    it on x86_64 because (a) x86 seems to OK to accept a negative offset
    for mapping 2GB-4GB regions, and (b) I don't know about other
    architectures at all (I'll make it if needed).

 2. mmap() would succeed if "offset" + "length" get overflow, although
    it should return EOVERFLOW.

The detail of these problems is as follows:

1. mmap() succeeds even if "offset" argument is a negative value, although
   it should return EINVAL in such case.

POSIX says the type of the argument "off" is "off_t", which
is equivalent to "long" for all architecture, so it is allowed to
give a negative "off" to mmap().

In such case, it is actually regarded as big positive value
because the type of "off" is "unsigned long" in the kernel. 
For example, off=-4096 (-0x1000) is regarded as 
off = 0xfffffffffffff000 (x86_64) and as off = 0xfffff000 (x86).
It results in mapping too big offset region.

2. mmap() would succeed if "offset" + "length" get overflow, although
   it should return EOVERFLOW.

The overflow check of mmap() almost doesn't work.

In do_mmap_pgoff(file, addr, len, prot, flags, pgoff),
the existing overflow check logic is as follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
		unsigned long len, unsigned long prot,
		unsigned long flags, unsigned long pgoff)
{
	if ((pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT)) < pgoff)
		return -EOVERFLOW;
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, for example on x86_64, if we give off=0x1000 and
len=0xfffffffffffff000, but EOVERFLOW is not returned.
It is because the checking is based on the page offset,
not on the byte offset.

To fix this bug, I convert this overflow check from page
offset base to byte offset base. 

Signed-off-by: Naotaka Hamaguchi <n.hamaguchi@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c |    3 +++
 mm/mmap.c                    |    3 ++-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
index 0514890..ddefd6c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(mmap, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, len,
        if (off & ~PAGE_MASK)
                goto out;

+       if ((off_t) off < 0)
+               goto out;
+
        error = sys_mmap_pgoff(addr, len, prot, flags, fd, off >> PAGE_SHIFT);
 out:
        return error;
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index 3f758c7..2fa99cd 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -948,6 +948,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
        vm_flags_t vm_flags;
        int error;
        unsigned long reqprot = prot;
+       unsigned long off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;

        /*
         * Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC?
@@ -971,7 +972,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
                return -ENOMEM;

        /* offset overflow? */
-       if ((pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT)) < pgoff)
+       if ((off + len) < off)
                return -EOVERFLOW;

        /* Too many mappings? */
--
1.7.7.4

Best Regards,
Naotaka Hamaguchi

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Naotaka Hamaguchi <n.hamaguchi@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm: mmap() sometimes succeeds even if the region to map is invalid.
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:43:05 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F3E1319.6050304@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)

This patch fixes two bugs of mmap():
 1. mmap() succeeds even if "offset" argument is a negative value, although
    it should return EINVAL in such case. Currently I have only checked
    it on x86_64 because (a) x86 seems to OK to accept a negative offset
    for mapping 2GB-4GB regions, and (b) I don't know about other
    architectures at all (I'll make it if needed).

 2. mmap() would succeed if "offset" + "length" get overflow, although
    it should return EOVERFLOW.

The detail of these problems is as follows:

1. mmap() succeeds even if "offset" argument is a negative value, although
   it should return EINVAL in such case.

POSIX says the type of the argument "off" is "off_t", which
is equivalent to "long" for all architecture, so it is allowed to
give a negative "off" to mmap().

In such case, it is actually regarded as big positive value
because the type of "off" is "unsigned long" in the kernel. 
For example, off=-4096 (-0x1000) is regarded as 
off = 0xfffffffffffff000 (x86_64) and as off = 0xfffff000 (x86).
It results in mapping too big offset region.

2. mmap() would succeed if "offset" + "length" get overflow, although
   it should return EOVERFLOW.

The overflow check of mmap() almost doesn't work.

In do_mmap_pgoff(file, addr, len, prot, flags, pgoff),
the existing overflow check logic is as follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
		unsigned long len, unsigned long prot,
		unsigned long flags, unsigned long pgoff)
{
	if ((pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT)) < pgoff)
		return -EOVERFLOW;
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, for example on x86_64, if we give off=0x1000 and
len=0xfffffffffffff000, but EOVERFLOW is not returned.
It is because the checking is based on the page offset,
not on the byte offset.

To fix this bug, I convert this overflow check from page
offset base to byte offset base. 

Signed-off-by: Naotaka Hamaguchi <n.hamaguchi@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c |    3 +++
 mm/mmap.c                    |    3 ++-
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
index 0514890..ddefd6c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(mmap, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, len,
        if (off & ~PAGE_MASK)
                goto out;

+       if ((off_t) off < 0)
+               goto out;
+
        error = sys_mmap_pgoff(addr, len, prot, flags, fd, off >> PAGE_SHIFT);
 out:
        return error;
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index 3f758c7..2fa99cd 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -948,6 +948,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
        vm_flags_t vm_flags;
        int error;
        unsigned long reqprot = prot;
+       unsigned long off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;

        /*
         * Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC?
@@ -971,7 +972,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
                return -ENOMEM;

        /* offset overflow? */
-       if ((pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT)) < pgoff)
+       if ((off + len) < off)
                return -EOVERFLOW;

        /* Too many mappings? */
--
1.7.7.4

Best Regards,
Naotaka Hamaguchi


             reply	other threads:[~2012-02-17  8:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-02-17  8:43 Naotaka Hamaguchi [this message]
2012-02-17  8:43 ` [PATCH] mm: mmap() sometimes succeeds even if the region to map is invalid Naotaka Hamaguchi
2012-02-17  9:04 ` Venu Byravarasu
2012-02-17  9:04   ` Venu Byravarasu
2012-02-20  7:23   ` Naotaka Hamaguchi
2012-02-20  7:23     ` Naotaka Hamaguchi
2012-02-18  2:00 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-18  2:00   ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-21  8:30   ` Naotaka Hamaguchi
2012-02-21  8:30     ` Naotaka Hamaguchi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4F3E1319.6050304@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=n.hamaguchi@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.