Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: fs: out of bounds on stack in iov_iter_advance | From | Jens Axboe <> | Date | Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:41:42 -0700 |
| |
On 11/10/2015 07:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 11/10/2015 07:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 10 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>>> Al, ping? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds >>>> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> How are we going to handle that one? I can put it into mainline pull >>>>>> request via vfs.git, with Cc: stable, but if e.g. Jens prefers to >>>>>> take it >>>>>> via the block tree, I'll be glad to leave it for him to deal with. >>>>> >>>>> Put it in the vfs tree (I'm hoping for a pull request soon..) >>>>> >>>>> I pulled the block trees from Jens yesterday, so there is presumably >>>>> nothing pending there right now. >>>> >>>> Apparently my "hoping for a pull request soon" was ridiculously >>>> optimistic. >>>> >>>> Al, looking at the most recent linux-next, most of the vfs commits >>>> there seem to be committed in the last day or two. I'm getting the >>>> feeling that that is all 4.5 material by now. >>>> >>>> Should I just take the iov patch as-is, since apparently no vfs pull >>>> request is happening this merge cycle? And no, I'm not taking >>>> "developed during the second week of the merge window, and sent in the >>>> last few days of it". I'm done with that. >>> >>> I've got 8 other patches pending for a post core merge, just waiting for >>> the last core pull request to go in. I haven't seen this iov iter fix, >>> though. >> >> It was in this thread, looked like this (without the whitespace damage): >> >> dax_io(): don't let non-error value escape via retval instead of >> EFAULT >> >> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> >> --- >> diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c >> index a86d3cc..7b653e9 100644 >> --- a/fs/dax.c >> +++ b/fs/dax.c >> @@ -169,8 +169,10 @@ static ssize_t dax_io(struct inode *inode, >> struct iov_iter *iter, >> else >> len = iov_iter_zero(max - pos, iter); >> >> - if (!len) >> + if (!len) { >> + retval = -EFAULT; >> break; >> + } >> >> pos += len; >> addr += len; >> >> >> although I don't think I saw a confirmation that that was what Sasha >> actually hit (but Sasha had narrowed it down to DAX, so it looks >> possible/likely) > > I found it right after sending that email. Patch looks pretty straight > forward, at least from the case of max - pos != 0 and len == 0 on > return. Might be cleaner to add a > > if (retval < 0) > break; > > check, that should be the case where max == pos anyway. But we'd > potentially return -Exx into -EFAULT for that case with the patch. > > Hmm?
So we already do that, in the 'if' above. I think the patch looks fine.
-- Jens Axboe
| |