From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
"Mateusz Guzik" <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <ravi@prevas.dk>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
<Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>, <Ananth.narayan@amd.com>,
Swapnil Sapkal <swapnil.sapkal@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] fs/pipe: Limit the slots in pipe_resize_ring()
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:46:01 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7cbc5845-e890-4bf5-9488-cd2496642f7e@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250307145125.GE5963@redhat.com>
Hello Oleg,
Thank you for the review.
On 3/7/2025 8:21 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/07, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>>
>> --- a/fs/pipe.c
>> +++ b/fs/pipe.c
>> @@ -1271,6 +1271,10 @@ int pipe_resize_ring(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned int nr_slots)
>> struct pipe_buffer *bufs;
>> unsigned int head, tail, mask, n;
>>
>> + /* nr_slots larger than limits of pipe->{head,tail} */
>> + if (unlikely(nr_slots > (pipe_index_t)-1u))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> The whole series look "obviously" good to me,
>
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> But damn ;) lets look at round_pipe_size(),
>
> unsigned int round_pipe_size(unsigned int size)
> {
> if (size > (1U << 31))
> return 0;
>
> /* Minimum pipe size, as required by POSIX */
> if (size < PAGE_SIZE)
> return PAGE_SIZE;
>
> return roundup_pow_of_two(size);
> }
>
> it is a bit silly to allow the maximum size == 1U << 31 in pipe_set_size()
> or (more importantly) in /proc/sys/fs/pipe-max-size, and then nack nr_slots
> in pipe_resize_ring().
>
> So perhaps this check should go into round_pipe_size() ? Although I can't
> suggest a simple/clear check without unnecesary restrictions for the case
> when pipe_index_t is u16.
>
> pipe_resize_ring() has another caller, watch_queue_set_size(), but it has
> its own hard limits...
"nr_notes" for watch queues cannot cross 512 so we should be covered there.
As for round_pipe_size(), we can do:
diff --git a/fs/pipe.c b/fs/pipe.c
index ce1af7592780..f82098aaa510 100644
--- a/fs/pipe.c
+++ b/fs/pipe.c
@@ -1253,6 +1253,8 @@ const struct file_operations pipefifo_fops = {
*/
unsigned int round_pipe_size(unsigned int size)
{
+ unsigned int max_slots;
+
if (size > (1U << 31))
return 0;
@@ -1260,7 +1262,14 @@ unsigned int round_pipe_size(unsigned int size)
if (size < PAGE_SIZE)
return PAGE_SIZE;
- return roundup_pow_of_two(size);
+ size = roundup_pow_of_two(size);
+ max_slots = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+ /* Max slots cannot be covered pipe->{head,tail} limits */
+ if (max_slots > (pipe_index_t)-1U)
+ return 0;
+
+ return size;
}
/*
--
Since pipe_resize_ring() can be called without actually looking at
"pipe_max_size" as is the case with watch queues, we can either keep the
check in pipe_resize_ring() as well out of paranoia or get rid of it
since the current users are within the bounds.
Thoughts?
>
> Oleg.
>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-07 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-07 5:29 [PATCH v2 0/4] pipe: Trivial cleanups K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-07 5:29 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] fs/pipe: Limit the slots in pipe_resize_ring() K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-07 14:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-07 16:16 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2025-03-07 22:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-03-07 5:29 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] kernel/watch_queue: Use pipe_buf() to retrieve the pipe buffer K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-07 5:29 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] fs/pipe: Use pipe_buf() helper to retrieve " K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-07 5:29 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] fs/splice: " K Prateek Nayak
2025-03-10 7:59 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] pipe: Trivial cleanups Christian Brauner
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=7cbc5845-e890-4bf5-9488-cd2496642f7e@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=Ananth.narayan@amd.com \
--cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=ravi@prevas.dk \
--cc=swapnil.sapkal@amd.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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