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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 3D2D2C2BA19 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:05:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165AD20737 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:05:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1586948735; bh=tSERhkVAp2R3AMPzoD4LyBuyLCXdohwPvurD6UHLwTs=; h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:List-ID:From; b=l+5ekx9Gwmv3BvX9aFHl0b/E+cpI4KcqSTFC3L7kANsJabaLN/nlvbPhCsVdSGGqQ pyq8v8mdwTtunEkRalh74Q5mCoDNPSJ9lEfO+Jv6FW0ny04ZpNDzyn4mrzjsmgdRj8 fKbxoLqpDG86waU2jEIO3S8A3TjIY/BMOqTByhWk= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2896723AbgDOLFZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:05:25 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:36329 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2896713AbgDOLEs (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:04:48 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552315C01A9; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:04:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=LrVqQT DWuMOeaAScPdt9JGXroHmeOP9ZOqPKWokGiIE=; b=SijOwtCIOe/e8lR/uZ37nM /PDnEnIp1TOr7M2/qomJglG9C8srhHW1jCzVjv9TZWg77F6nRrfCTWaRFFf1u1iM PcG0sh6JQ/NKzhjwKT1pTSqaTPkffLoighiIkAwhaJrArF82QqbbI49FzeTHBIK/ nMHHLcnstLN2t14jvTt4UIAyzHq5xagLEqhRo0U5+1gMVpsyigQHShtb9vmFV7uN OXClfNJuI1XZ+BA7fY8GdraXxRZat3Juf2EtHP7wghdP+yhxjP0Eo+RQlHvwTUOT tOSwxjUMZzWXIYuTPc+LiFZ0FjdGHc2fcjRkv9R7ma4irJ/THPx1NLYbeev16qCg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrfeefgddvgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvhfffkfggtgfgsehtkeertddttd flnecuhfhrohhmpeeoghhrvghgkhhhsehlihhnuhigfhhouhhnuggrthhiohhnrdhorhhg qeenucfkphepkeefrdekiedrkeelrddutdejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepheenuc frrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhrvghgsehkrhhorghhrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 833DB306005E; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] XArray: Fix xa_find_next for large multi-index entries" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree To: willy@infradead.org, bhelgaas@google.com, keescook@chromium.org Cc: From: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:04:37 +0200 Message-ID: <1586948677159164@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to . thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From bd40b17ca49d7d110adf456e647701ce74de2241 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 05:07:55 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] XArray: Fix xa_find_next for large multi-index entries Coverity pointed out that xas_sibling() was shifting xa_offset without promoting it to an unsigned long first, so the shift could cause an overflow and we'd get the wrong answer. The fix is obvious, and the new test-case provokes UBSAN to report an error: runtime error: shift exponent 60 is too large for 32-bit type 'int' Fixes: 19c30f4dd092 ("XArray: Fix xa_find_after with multi-index entries") Reported-by: Bjorn Helgaas Reported-by: Kees Cook Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org diff --git a/lib/test_xarray.c b/lib/test_xarray.c index 55c14e8c8859..8c7d7a8468b8 100644 --- a/lib/test_xarray.c +++ b/lib/test_xarray.c @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ static unsigned int tests_run; static unsigned int tests_passed; +static const unsigned int order_limit = + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XARRAY_MULTI) ? BITS_PER_LONG : 1; + #ifndef XA_DEBUG # ifdef __KERNEL__ void xa_dump(const struct xarray *xa) { } @@ -959,6 +962,20 @@ static noinline void check_multi_find_2(struct xarray *xa) } } +static noinline void check_multi_find_3(struct xarray *xa) +{ + unsigned int order; + + for (order = 5; order < order_limit; order++) { + unsigned long index = 1UL << (order - 5); + + XA_BUG_ON(xa, !xa_empty(xa)); + xa_store_order(xa, 0, order - 4, xa_mk_index(0), GFP_KERNEL); + XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_find_after(xa, &index, ULONG_MAX, XA_PRESENT)); + xa_erase_index(xa, 0); + } +} + static noinline void check_find_1(struct xarray *xa) { unsigned long i, j, k; @@ -1081,6 +1098,7 @@ static noinline void check_find(struct xarray *xa) for (i = 2; i < 10; i++) check_multi_find_1(xa, i); check_multi_find_2(xa); + check_multi_find_3(xa); } /* See find_swap_entry() in mm/shmem.c */ diff --git a/lib/xarray.c b/lib/xarray.c index 1d9fab7db8da..acd1fad2e862 100644 --- a/lib/xarray.c +++ b/lib/xarray.c @@ -1839,7 +1839,8 @@ static bool xas_sibling(struct xa_state *xas) if (!node) return false; mask = (XA_CHUNK_SIZE << node->shift) - 1; - return (xas->xa_index & mask) > (xas->xa_offset << node->shift); + return (xas->xa_index & mask) > + ((unsigned long)xas->xa_offset << node->shift); } /**