From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965353AbcIPTpy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:45:54 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:57982 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S965052AbcIPTpk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:45:40 -0400
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 20:45:33 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Subject: Re: Runtime failure running sh:qemu in -next due to 'sh: fix
 copy_from_user()'
Message-ID: <20160916194532.GY2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20160916191218.GA12104@roeck-us.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160916191218.GA12104@roeck-us.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:12:18PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I see the following runtime failure when running a 'sh' image with qemu in -next.

> Bisect points to commit 6e050503a150 ("sh: fix copy_from_user()"). Bisect log is
> attached.

Does reverting it recover the thing?

The change in question is
        if (__copy_size && __access_ok(__copy_from, __copy_size))
-               return __copy_user(to, from, __copy_size);
+               __copy_size = __copy_user(to, from, __copy_size);
+
+       if (unlikely(__copy_size))
+               memset(to + (n - __copy_size), 0, __copy_size);
 
        return __copy_size;

so the only difference is zeroing the tail of destination; return value
remains the same in all cases (what used to be return foo(); becomes
__copy_size = foo(); /* operations not modifying __copy_size */
return __copy_size;) and that memset is 100% legitimate -
copy_from_user(to, from, n) returning m means that the last m bytes of
[to .. to + n - 1] have not been copied into and must be zeroed.

If it affects anything at all, we have a serious problem somewhere in the
caller.