Re: [PATCH] mm/mremap: fix regression in vrm->new_addr check

["Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>]

* Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com> [250827 23:27]:
> 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.
> 
> Fixes: 3215eaceca87 ("mm/mremap: refactor initial parameter sanity checks")
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>

I assume this showed up with clang?

Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>

> ---
>  mm/mremap.c | 11 +++++------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
> index e618a706aff5..692acb0f9ea2 100644
> --- a/mm/mremap.c
> +++ b/mm/mremap.c
> @@ -1771,18 +1771,17 @@ static unsigned long check_mremap_params(struct vma_remap_struct *vrm)
>  	 * for DOS-emu "duplicate shm area" thing. But
>  	 * a zero new-len is nonsensical.
>  	 */
> -	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)
> +	if (!vrm->new_len || 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;
> -- 
> 2.51.0.268.g9569e192d0-goog
>