Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:53:29 +0100 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] proc: Fix integer overflow of VmLib |
| |
I guess you meant s@overflow@underflow@ right?
On Thu 05-01-17 00:29:18, Richard Weinberger wrote: > /proc/<pid>/status can report extremely high VmLib values which > will confuse monitoring tools. > VmLib is mm->exec_vm minus text size, where exec_vm is the number of > bytes backed by an executable memory mapping and text size is > mm->end_code - mm->start_code as set up by binfmt. > > For the vast majority of all programs text size is smaller than exec_vm. > But if a program interprets binaries on its own the calculation result > can be negative. > UserModeLinux is such an example. It installs and removes lots of PROT_EXEC > mappings but mm->start_code and mm->start_code remain and VmLib turns > negative. > > Fix this by detecting the overflow and just return 0. > For interpreting the value reported by VmLib is anyway useless but > returning 0 does at least not confuse userspace.
Is really 0 what the userspace expects? Why shouldn't we just report exec_vm unconditionally? Btw. we used to do something that many years back https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/8/24/47. We are exporting the text size so the calculation can be done by the userspace.
> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> > --- > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > index 8f96a49178d0..220091c29aa6 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c > @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ void task_mem(struct seq_file *m, struct mm_struct *mm) > > text = (PAGE_ALIGN(mm->end_code) - (mm->start_code & PAGE_MASK)) >> 10; > lib = (mm->exec_vm << (PAGE_SHIFT-10)) - text; > + if ((long)lib < 0) > + lib = 0; > swap = get_mm_counter(mm, MM_SWAPENTS); > ptes = PTRS_PER_PTE * sizeof(pte_t) * atomic_long_read(&mm->nr_ptes); > pmds = PTRS_PER_PMD * sizeof(pmd_t) * mm_nr_pmds(mm); > -- > 2.10.2 >
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |