From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A864BC4363D for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 04:26:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D0D2084C for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 04:26:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726883AbgIWE0Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2020 00:26:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53660 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726448AbgIWE0X (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2020 00:26:23 -0400 Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [IPv6:2002:c35c:fd02::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1AEFC061755 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 21:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kKwM1-004Hvh-Hd; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 04:26:05 +0000 Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 05:26:05 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Rasmus Villemoes Cc: Andy Lutomirski , syzbot , Aleksa Sarai , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Thomas Gleixner , X86 ML Subject: Re: WARNING in ex_handler_uaccess Message-ID: <20200923042605.GG3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <000000000000762dee05af9ccd01@google.com> <20200918235528.GB3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200919001714.GC3421308@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: Al Viro Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:22:19PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > So, not sure how the above got triggered, but I notice there might be an > edge case in check_zeroed_user(): > > from -= align; > size += align; > > if (!user_read_access_begin(from, size)) > return -EFAULT; > > unsafe_get_user(val, (unsigned long __user *) from, err_fault); > > > Suppose size is (size_t)-3 and align is 3. What's the convention for > access_ok(whatever, 0)? Is that equivalent to access_ok(whatever, 1), or > is it always true (or $ARCH-dependent)? It's usually true... > But, AFAICT, no current caller of check_zeroed_user can end up passing > in a size that can overflow to 0. E.g. for the case at hand, size cannot > be more than SIZE_MAX-24. Might be worth slapping if (unlikely(!size)) return -EFAULT; // overflow just before user_read_access_begin() to be sure...