From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:28:26 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hector Marco-Gisbert <hecmargi@upv.es>,
        Ismael Ripoll Ripoll <iripoll@upv.es>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: refuse wrapped vm_brk requests
Message-ID: <20160711122826.GA969@redhat.com>
References: <1468014494-25291-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <1468014494-25291-3-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1468014494-25291-3-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

I think both patches are fine, just a question.

On 07/08, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> -static int do_brk(unsigned long addr, unsigned long len)
> +static int do_brk(unsigned long addr, unsigned long request)
>  {
>  	struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma, *prev;
> -	unsigned long flags;
> +	unsigned long flags, len;
>  	struct rb_node **rb_link, *rb_parent;
>  	pgoff_t pgoff = addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>  	int error;
>  
> -	len = PAGE_ALIGN(len);
> +	len = PAGE_ALIGN(request);
> +	if (len < request)
> +		return -ENOMEM;

So iiuc "len < request" is only possible if len == 0, right?

>  	if (!len)
>  		return 0;

and thus this patch fixes the error code returned by do_brk() in case
of overflow, now it returns -ENOMEM rather than zero. Perhaps

	if (!len)
		return 0;
	len = PAGE_ALIGN(len);
	if (!len)
		return -ENOMEM;

would be more clear but this is subjective.

I am wondering if we should shift this overflow check to the caller(s).
Say, sys_brk() does find_vma_intersection(mm, oldbrk, newbrk+PAGE_SIZE)
before do_brk(), and in case of overflow find_vma_intersection() can
wrongly return NULL.

Then do_brk() will be called with len = -oldbrk, this can overflow or
not but in any case this doesn't look right too.

Or I am totally confused?

Oleg.

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>