lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mm: refuse wrapped vm_brk requests
I think both patches are fine, just a question.

On 07/08, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> -static int do_brk(unsigned long addr, unsigned long len)
> +static int do_brk(unsigned long addr, unsigned long request)
> {
> struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> struct vm_area_struct *vma, *prev;
> - unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned long flags, len;
> struct rb_node **rb_link, *rb_parent;
> pgoff_t pgoff = addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> int error;
>
> - len = PAGE_ALIGN(len);
> + len = PAGE_ALIGN(request);
> + if (len < request)
> + return -ENOMEM;

So iiuc "len < request" is only possible if len == 0, right?

> if (!len)
> return 0;

and thus this patch fixes the error code returned by do_brk() in case
of overflow, now it returns -ENOMEM rather than zero. Perhaps

if (!len)
return 0;
len = PAGE_ALIGN(len);
if (!len)
return -ENOMEM;

would be more clear but this is subjective.

I am wondering if we should shift this overflow check to the caller(s).
Say, sys_brk() does find_vma_intersection(mm, oldbrk, newbrk+PAGE_SIZE)
before do_brk(), and in case of overflow find_vma_intersection() can
wrongly return NULL.

Then do_brk() will be called with len = -oldbrk, this can overflow or
not but in any case this doesn't look right too.

Or I am totally confused?

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-11 15:01    [W:2.681 / U:1.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site