lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: check for pgoff value overflow
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:37:57 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:

> Here are a couple options for computing the mask. I changed the name
> you suggested to make it more obvious that the mask is being used to
> check for loff_t overflow.
>
> If we want to explicitly comptue the mask as in code above.
> #define PGOFF_LOFFT_MAX \
> (((1UL << (PAGE_SHIFT + 1)) - 1) << (BITS_PER_LONG - (PAGE_SHIFT + 1)))
>
> Or, we use PAGE_MASK
> #define PGOFF_LOFFT_MAX (PAGE_MASK << (BITS_PER_LONG - (2 * PAGE_SHIFT) - 1))

Sounds good.

> In either case, we need a big comment explaining the mask and
> how we have that extra bit +/- 1 because the offset will be converted
> to a signed value.

Yup.

> > Also, we later to
> >
> > len = vma_len + ((loff_t)vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > /* check for overflow */
> > if (len < vma_len)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > which is ungainly: even if we passed the PGOFF_T_MAX test, there can
> > still be an overflow which we still must check for. Is that avoidable?
> > Probably not...
>
> Yes, it is required. That check takes into account the length argument
> which is added to page offset. So, yes you can pass the first check and
> fail this one.

Well I was sort of wondering if both checks could be done in a single
operation, but I guess not.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-09 00:54    [W:0.051 / U:3.072 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site