From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl: fix min/max handling in __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax() Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 12:18:40 -0700 Message-ID: <20101007121840.ca49e2ac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1286025469.2582.1806.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101004085913.GR14068@sgi.com> <1286183058.18293.26.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101004093439.GG5189@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <1286187030.18293.33.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101004103545.GJ5189@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <1286188701.18293.57.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101005130117.GK5170@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <20101007071859.GD5471@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <20101007092538.GE5471@cr0.nay.redhat.com> <1286445081.2912.15.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1286470743.2912.276.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico?= Wang , Robin Holt , linux-kernel , Willy Tarreau , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , "Pekka Savola (ipv6)" , Patrick McHardy , Alexey Kuznetsov To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1286470743.2912.276.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:59:03 +0200 Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010 __ 09:37 -0700, Eric W. Biederman a __crit : > > > The difference between long handling and int handling is a > > usability issue. I don't expect we will be exporting new > > vectors via sysctl, so the conversion of a handful of vectors > > from int to long is where this is most likely to be used. > > > > I skimmed through all of what I presume are the current users > > aka linux-2.6.36-rcX and there don't appear to be any users > > of proc_dounlongvec_minmax that use it's vector properties there. > > > > Which doubly tells me that incrementing the min and max pointers > > is not what we want to do. > > > > Thats fine by me, thanks Eric. > > Andrew, please remove previous patch from your tree and replace it by > following one : > > [PATCH v2] sysctl: fix min/max handling in __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax() > > When proc_doulongvec_minmax() is used with an array of longs, > and no min/max check requested (.extra1 or .extra2 being NULL), we > dereference a NULL pointer for the second element of the array. > > Noticed while doing some changes in network stack for the "16TB problem" > > Fix is to not change min & max pointers in > __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(), so that all elements of the vector share > an unique min/max limit, like proc_dointvec_minmax(). > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet > --- > kernel/sysctl.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c > index f88552c..8e45451 100644 > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c > @@ -2485,7 +2485,7 @@ static int __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(void *data, struct ctl_table *table, int > kbuf[left] = 0; > } > > - for (; left && vleft--; i++, min++, max++, first=0) { > + for (; left && vleft--; i++, first=0) { > unsigned long val; > > if (write) { Did we check to see whether any present callers are passing in pointers to arrays of min/max values? I wonder if there's any documentation for this interface which just became wrong.