Re: [bug report] fs/proc/task_mmu: implement IOCTL to get and optionally clear info about PTEs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Dan,

Thank you for reporting.

On 9/11/24 3:21 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hello Muhammad Usama Anjum,
> 
> Commit 52526ca7fdb9 ("fs/proc/task_mmu: implement IOCTL to get and
> optionally clear info about PTEs") from Aug 21, 2023 (linux-next),
> leads to the following Smatch static checker warning:
> 
> 	fs/proc/task_mmu.c:2664 pagemap_scan_get_args()
> 	warn: potential user controlled sizeof overflow 'arg->vec_len * 24' '0-u64max * 24' type='ullong'
> 
> fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>     2637 static int pagemap_scan_get_args(struct pm_scan_arg *arg,
>     2638                                  unsigned long uarg)
>     2639 {
>     2640         if (copy_from_user(arg, (void __user *)uarg, sizeof(*arg)))
> 
> arg comes from the user
> 
>     2641                 return -EFAULT;
>     2642 
>     2643         if (arg->size != sizeof(struct pm_scan_arg))
>     2644                 return -EINVAL;
>     2645 
>     2646         /* Validate requested features */
>     2647         if (arg->flags & ~PM_SCAN_FLAGS)
>     2648                 return -EINVAL;
>     2649         if ((arg->category_inverted | arg->category_mask |
>     2650              arg->category_anyof_mask | arg->return_mask) & ~PM_SCAN_CATEGORIES)
>     2651                 return -EINVAL;
>     2652 
>     2653         arg->start = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->start);
>     2654         arg->end = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->end);
>     2655         arg->vec = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->vec);
>     2656 
>     2657         /* Validate memory pointers */
>     2658         if (!IS_ALIGNED(arg->start, PAGE_SIZE))
>     2659                 return -EINVAL;
> 
> We should probably check ->end here as well.
> 
>     2660         if (!access_ok((void __user *)(long)arg->start, arg->end - arg->start))
I'll add check to verify that end is equal or greater than start.

> 
> Otherwise we're checking access_ok() and then making ->end larger.  Maybe move
> the arg->end = ALIGN(arg->end, PAGE_SIZE) before the access_ok() check?
> 
>     2661                 return -EFAULT;
>     2662         if (!arg->vec && arg->vec_len)
>     2663                 return -EINVAL;
> --> 2664         if (arg->vec && !access_ok((void __user *)(long)arg->vec,
>     2665                               arg->vec_len * sizeof(struct page_region)))
> 
> This "arg->vec_len * sizeof(struct page_region)" multiply could have an integer
> overflow.
I'll check for overflow before calling access_ok().

> 
> arg->vec_len is a u64 so size_add() won't work on a 32bit system.  I wonder if
> size_add() should check for sizes larger than SIZE_MAX?
> 
>     2666                 return -EFAULT;
>     2667 
>     2668         /* Fixup default values */
>     2669         arg->end = ALIGN(arg->end, PAGE_SIZE);
>     2670         arg->walk_end = 0;
>     2671         if (!arg->max_pages)
>     2672                 arg->max_pages = ULONG_MAX;
>     2673 
>     2674         return 0;
>     2675 }
I'll send fix soon.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter

-- 
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux