lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label)
From
Date
On 09/07/2017 04:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Vishwanath Pai <vpai@akamai.com> wrote:
>>
>> Writing U32INT_MAX as 0xFFFFFFFFULL was a mistake on my part. I could
>> have avoided all of this by using built-in constants instead of trying
>> to define them myself. I will rewrite the function as below and send out
>> another patch:
>>
>> static u64 user2rate_bytes(u64 user)
>> {
>> u64 r;
>>
>> r = user ? U32_MAX / (u32) user : U32_MAX;
>> r = (r - 1) << XT_HASHLIMIT_BYTE_SHIFT;
>> return r;
>> }
>
> No, that is *still* wrong.
>
> In particular, the test for "user" being zero is done in 64 bits, but
> then when you do the divide, the cast to (u32) will take the low 32
> bits - which may be zero, because only upper bits were set.
>
> So now you get a divide-by-zero.
>
> What seems to be going on is that a value larger than UINT32_MAX is
> basically "invalid", since the reverse function cannot possibly
> generate that.
>
> So one possible fix is to just make that an error case in the caller,
> and then make user2rate_bytes() not take (or return) "u64" at all, but
> simply use u32.
>
> Please be more careful here.
>
> Linus
>

Yes, that is true. Thanks for pointing it out. I will change the user
param to 'u32', and also change the return type to u32 as well. I will
add a check in hashlimit_mt_check() to make sure the userspace never
sends anything > U32_MAX and error out if they do.

Thanks,
Vishwanath

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-07 23:22    [W:0.050 / U:1.496 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site