On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 12:36:25PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> When running static analysis tools to find where signed values could
> potentially wrap the family of d_path() functions turn out to trigger a
> lot of mess. In evaluating the code, all of these usages seem safe, but
> pointer math is involved so if a negative number is ever somehow passed
> into these functions, memory can be traversed backwards in ways not
> intended.
>
> Resolve all of the abuguity by just making "size" an unsigned value,
> which takes the guesswork out of everything involved.
TBH, I'm not sure it's the right approach. Huge argument passed to d_path()
is a bad idea, no matter what. Do you really want to have the damn thing
try and fill 3Gb of buffer, all while holding rcu_read_lock() and a global
spinlock or two? Hell, s/3Gb/1Gb/ and it won't get any better...
How about we do this instead:
d_path(const struct path *path, char *buf, int buflen)
{
if (unlikely((unsigned)buflen > 0x8000)) {
buf += (unsigned)buflen - 0x8000;
buflen = 0x8000;
}
as in mainline
}
and take care of both issues?
