Mikulas noticed in the existing do_proc_douintvec_minmax_conv() and
do_proc_dopipe_max_size_conv() introduced in this patchset, that they
inconsistently handle overflow and min/max range inputs:

For example:

  0 ... param->min - 1 ---> ERANGE
  param->min ... param->max ---> the value is accepted
  param->max + 1 ... 0x100000000L + param->min - 1 ---> ERANGE
  0x100000000L + param->min ... 0x100000000L + param->max ---> EINVAL
  0x100000000L + param->max + 1, 0x200000000L + param->min - 1 ---> ERANGE
  0x200000000L + param->min ... 0x200000000L + param->max ---> EINVAL
  0x200000000L + param->max + 1, 0x300000000L + param->min - 1 ---> ERANGE

In do_proc_do*() routines which store values into unsigned int variables
(4 bytes wide for 64-bit builds), first validate that the input unsigned
long value (8 bytes wide for 64-bit builds) will fit inside the smaller
unsigned int variable.  Then check that the unsigned int value falls
inside the specified parameter min, max range.  Otherwise the unsigned
long -> unsigned int conversion drops leading bits from the input value,
leading to the inconsistent pattern Mikulas documented above.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1507658689-11669-5-git-send-email-joe.lawrence@redhat.comSigned-off-by: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>
Reported-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>