On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:41:12AM -0700, Hridya Valsaraju wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:14 AM Christian Brauner
> <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 04:55:08PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:27:26PM -0700, Hridya Valsaraju wrote:
> > > > Length of a binderfs device name cannot exceed BINDERFS_MAX_NAME.
> > > > This patch adds a check in binderfs_init() to ensure the same
> > > > for the default binder devices that will be created in every
> > > > binderfs instance.
> > > >
> > > > Co-developed-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/android/binderfs.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/android/binderfs.c b/drivers/android/binderfs.c
> > > > index aee46dd1be91..55c5adb87585 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/android/binderfs.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/android/binderfs.c
> > > > @@ -570,6 +570,18 @@ static struct file_system_type binder_fs_type = {
> > > > int __init init_binderfs(void)
> > > > {
> > > > int ret;
> > > > + const char *name;
> > > > + size_t len;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Verify that the default binderfs device names are valid. */
> > >
> > > And by "valid" you only mean "not bigger than BINDERFS_MAX_NAME, right?
> > >
> > > > + name = binder_devices_param;
> > > > + for (len = strcspn(name, ","); len > 0; len = strcspn(name, ",")) {
> > > > + if (len > BINDERFS_MAX_NAME)
> > > > + return -E2BIG;
> > > > + name += len;
> > > > + if (*name == ',')
> > > > + name++;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > We already tokenize the binderfs device names in binder_init(), why not
> > > check this there instead? Parsing the same string over and over isn't
> > > the nicest.
> >
> > non-binderfs binder devices do not have their limit set to
> > BINDERFS_NAME_MAX. That's why the check has likely been made specific to
> > binderfs binder devices which do have that limit.
>
>
> Thank you Greg and Christian, for taking another look. Yes,
> non-binderfs binder devices not having this limitation is the reason
> why the check was made specific to binderfs devices. Also, when
> CONFIG_ANDROID_BINDERFS is set, patch 1/2 disabled the same string
> being parsed in binder_init().
>
> >
> > But, in practice, 255 is the standard path-part limit that no-one really
> > exceeds especially not for stuff such as device nodes which usually have
> > rather standard naming schemes (e.g. binder, vndbinder, hwbinder, etc.).
> > So yes, we can move that check before both the binderfs binder device
> > and non-binderfs binder device parsing code and treat it as a generic
> > check.
> > Then we can also backport that check as you requested in the other mail.
> > Unless Hridya or Todd have objections, of course.
>
> I do not have any objections to adding a generic check in binder_init() instead.
Was this patchset going to be redone based on this?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
