From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>
Cc: mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
pbonzini@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
adobriyan@gmail.com, mingfangsen@huawei.com,
wangxiaogang3@huawei.com, "Zhoukang (A)" <zhoukang7@huawei.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] sysctl: add proc_dointvec_jiffies_minmax to limit the min/max write value
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 10:06:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201905150945.C9D1F811F@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d5138655-41a8-0177-ae0d-c4674112bf56@huawei.com>
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:53:55PM +0800, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
> Friendly ping...
>
> 在 2019/4/24 12:04, Zhiqiang Liu 写道:
> >
> > Friendly ping...
Hi!
(Please include akpm on CC for next versions of this, as he's likely
the person to take this patch.)
> >
> >> From: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> In proc_dointvec_jiffies func, the write value is only checked
> >> whether it is larger than INT_MAX. If the write value is less
> >> than zero, it can also be successfully writen in the data.
This appears to be "be design", but I see many "unsigned int" users
that might be tricked into giant values... (for example, see
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c)
Should proc_dointvec_jiffies() just be fixed to disallow negative values
entirely? Looking at the implementation, it seems to be very intentional
about accepting negative values.
However, when I looked through a handful of proc_dointvec_jiffies()
users, it looks like they're all expecting a positive value. Many in the
networking subsystem are, in fact, writing to unsigned long variables,
as I mentioned.
Are there real-world cases of wanting to set a negative jiffie value
via proc_dointvec_jiffies()?
> >>
> >> However, in some scenarios, users would adopt the data to
> >> set timers or check whether time is expired. Generally, the data
> >> will be cast to an unsigned type variable, then the negative data
> >> becomes a very large unsigned value, which leads to long waits
> >> or other unpredictable problems.
> >>
> >> Here, we add a new func, proc_dointvec_jiffies_minmax, to limit the
> >> min/max write value, which is similar to the proc_dointvec_minmax func.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>
> >> Reported-by: Qiang Ning <ningqiang1@huawei.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Jie Liu <liujie165@huawei.com>
If proc_dointvec_jiffies() can't just be fixed, where will the new
function get used? It seems all the "unsigned int" users could benefit.
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-15 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-17 11:12 [PATCH next] sysctl: add proc_dointvec_jiffies_minmax to limit the min/max write value Zhiqiang Liu
2019-04-24 4:04 ` Zhiqiang Liu
2019-05-15 14:53 ` Zhiqiang Liu
2019-05-15 17:06 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2019-06-04 15:27 ` Zhiqiang Liu
2019-07-01 8:06 ` Zhiqiang Liu
2019-07-02 19:32 ` Luis Chamberlain
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=201905150945.C9D1F811F@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mingfangsen@huawei.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wangxiaogang3@huawei.com \
--cc=zhoukang7@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).