On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:55:59PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 03:50:05PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 08:01:10AM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:00PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > @@ -2833,6 +2836,10 @@ static int __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(void *data, struct ctl_table *table, int
> > > > break;
> > > > if (neg)
> > > > continue;
> > > > + if ((max && val > *max) || (min && val < *min)) {
> > > > + err = -EINVAL;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > val = convmul * val / convdiv;
> > > > if ((min && val < *min) || (max && val > *max))
> > > > continue;
> > >
> > > This is a generic change which affects all users of
> > > do_proc_doulongvec_minmax() that have extra1 or extra2 set. In sysctl.c, I
> > > do not see another user of proc_doulongvec_minmax() that has extra1 or
> > > extra2 set. However, have you verified whether your patch changes the
> > > behaviour for other files that make use of proc_doulongvec_minmax() or
> > > proc_doulongvec_ms_jiffies_minmax(), and not only of the file-max sysctl?
> >
> > Sorry for the delayed reply. I did look at the callers. The functions
> > that are of interest afaict are:
> >
> > proc_doulongvec_ms_jiffies_minmax
> > proc_doulongvec_minmax
> >
> > So this could be visible when users write values that would overflow the
> > type used in the kernel.
> >
> > I guess your point is whether we are venturing into userspace break
> > territory. Hm... We should probably make sure that we're not regressing
> > anyone else! What do you think if instead of the above patch we did:
>
> Hm, I prefer the original patch -- as the same (valid) reasons which apply
> for the file-max sysctl might also apply to other users of this function
> where extra1 and/or2 extra2 are set.
>
> If there are no other users of this function where extra1 or extra2 are set,
> just add a comment in the commit message:
>
> While this changes the behaviour of __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(),
> no other existing users in the kernel are affected by this change.
>
> If there are other users of this function where extra1 or extra2 are set,
> you would need to generalize the commit message overall.
Andrew, can you please drop this patch
[RESEND PATCH v3 2/2] sysctl: handle overflow for file-max
from your tree (It should be located at [1] from what I can gather.).
I'll resend it based on Dominik's observation and will generalize the
commit message and also error out *after* the conversion has been done
and not before.
The first patch 1/2 is correct and can be kept.
Thanks!
Christian
[1]: https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/sysctl-handle-overflow-for-file-max.patch
