lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] binfmt_elf.c : the BAD_ADDR macro again
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:35:47PM -0400, Ernie Petrides wrote:
> On Sunday, 20-Aug-2006 at 18:23 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 07:51:22PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:15:15AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > The proper fix would then be :
> > > [...]
> > > > -#define BAD_ADDR(x) ((unsigned long)(x) > TASK_SIZE)
> > > > +#define BAD_ADDR(x) ((unsigned long)(x) >= TASK_SIZE)
> > > [...]
> > > > - if (k > TASK_SIZE || eppnt->p_filesz > eppnt->p_memsz ||
> > > > + if (BAD_ADDR(k) || eppnt->p_filesz > eppnt->p_memsz ||
> > > [...]
> > > > - if (k > TASK_SIZE || elf_ppnt->p_filesz > elf_ppnt->p_memsz ||
> > > > + if (BAD_ADDR(k) || elf_ppnt->p_filesz > elf_ppnt->p_memsz ||
> > >
> > > Looks OK to me.
>
> These are all correct.

OK.

> > > > And even then, I'm not happy with this test :
> > > >
> > > > TASK_SIZE - elf_ppnt->p_memsz < k
> > > >
> > > > because it means that we only raise the error when
> > > >
> > > > k + elf_ppnt->p_memsz > TASK_SIZE
> > > >
> > > > I really think that we want to check this instead :
> > > >
> > > > k + elf_ppnt->p_memsz >= TASK_SIZE
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise we leave a window where this is undetected :
> > > >
> > > > load_addr + eppnt->p_vaddr == TASK_SIZE - eppnt->p_memsz
>
> The reason I did not propose changing these is because these are
> end-point checks (as opposed to starting address checks). I think
> that the following "equals" condition is conceptually valid:
>
> (starting-address + region-size == TASK_SIZE)

Agreed.

> > > > This will later lead to last_bss getting readjusted to TASK_SIZE, which I
> > > > don't think is expected at all :
> > > >
> > > > k = load_addr + eppnt->p_memsz + eppnt->p_vaddr;
> > > > if (k > last_bss)
> > > > last_bss = k;
>
> This is an interesting case, but I think the error checking works okay.
>
> After the ELF phdr loop, the resulting "last_bss" is used as follows:
>
> /* Map the last of the bss segment */
> if (last_bss > elf_bss) {
> down_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> error = do_brk(elf_bss, last_bss - elf_bss);
> up_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> if (BAD_ADDR(error))
> goto out_close;
> }
>
> The variable "last_bss" is used to compute the size argument in the
> call to do_brk(). If the section extends beyond TASK_SIZE, then do_brk()
> will return -EINVAL. If the do_brk() call succeeds but "elf_bss" is itself
> exactly at TASK_SIZE, then the BAD_ADDR() call above will catch it.

OK. Thanks for the explanation.

> > [...] But before this, I'd like to get comments from
> > the people who discussed the subject recently.
>
> Thus, I think that both 2.4.33 and 2.6.<latest> are okay without any
> further changes.

At least 2.4 needs the fix to use the correct BAD_ADDR (which is not
OK in 2.4.33 yet).

> Cheers. -ernie

Thanks Ernie,
Willy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-21 23:27    [W:0.064 / U:59.692 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site