-
Joe Lawrence authored
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>
fb910c42