Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:40:57 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: Fix the hw_breakpoint range check |
| |
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > > arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace() tries to avoid the overflow and does 2 > TASK_SIZE checks but it needs OR, not AND. Consider va = TASK_SIZE -1 > and len = 2 case. > > Note: TASK_SIZE doesn't look right at least on x86, I think it should > be replaced by TASK_SIZE_MAX. > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> > Fixes: 0067f1297241ea567f2b22a455519752d70fcca9 > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c b/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c > index f66ff16..1131c1f 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ int arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace(struct perf_event *bp) > va = info->address; > len = get_hbp_len(info->len); > > - return (va >= TASK_SIZE) && ((va + len - 1) >= TASK_SIZE); > + return (va >= TASK_SIZE) || ((va + len - 1) >= TASK_SIZE);
Well, can't you simplify it even further?
return (va + len - 1) >= TASK_SIZE;
AFAICT, the high end of the range matters, no?
Unless the original code was meant to short-circuit at the first comparison already...
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |