On 12/10/2010 06:23 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:25:00 +0530
Harsh Prateek Bora<harsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The existing code causes the if condition to pass when it should fail
on a *64-bit kernel* because of implicit data type conversions. It can
be observed by passing pos = -1 and count = some positive number.
This results in function returning EOVERFLOW instead of EINVAL.
With this patch, the function returns EINVAL when pos is -1 and count
is a positive number. This can be tested by calling sendfile with
offset = -1 and count = some positive number on a 64-bit kernel.
Hmm, is this clearer ?
==
commit 4a3956c790290efeb647bbb0c3a90476bb57800e adds support for
negative (unsigned) page offset for very large files as /proc/<pid>/mem
and /dev/mem.
In that patch, overlap check routine is added but it was wrong.
Considering 'pos' is loff_t, a signed value,
In usual case, at comparing 'pos' and 'pos+count'
(positive) / (positive) OK
(positive) / (nevative) EOVERFLOW
(negative) / (positive) EINVAL
(negative) / (negative) EINVAL
In FMODE_UNSIGNED_OFFSET case,
(positive) / (positive) OK
(positive) / (nevative) OK (ex. 0x7fff -> 0x8000)
(nevative) / (negative) OK
(negative) / (positive) EOVERFLOW (ex. 0xffff -> 0x1)
Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/read_write.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.37-rc5/fs/read_write.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.37-rc5.orig/fs/read_write.c
+++ linux-2.6.37-rc5/fs/read_write.c
@@ -37,11 +37,24 @@ __negative_fpos_check(struct file *file,
* pos or pos+count is negative here, check overflow.
* too big "count" will be caught in rw_verify_area().
*/
- if ((pos< 0)&& (pos + count< pos))
+ /* negative pos is allowed only when the flag is set */
+ if (!(file->f_mode& FMODE_UNSIGNED_OFFSET)) {
+ if ((pos> 0)&& (pos + count> 0))
+ return 0;
+ if ((pos> 0)&& (pos + count< 0))
+ return -EOVERFLOW;
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ /*
+ * The file supports 'unsigned long' offset. (but loff_t is signed)
+ * When pos is negative, -1 is the biggest number. So if pos + count
+ * is larger than pos, it's overflow.
+ * (ex) -1 + 10 = 9 ...means
+ * 0xffff + 0xa = 0x9 => overflow.
+ */
+ if ((pos< 0)&& (pos + count> 0))
Well, that works fine for what I am concerned but I think there is a
mismatch in the code and the comment above. As per the comments above,
it should be like:
if ((pos < 0) && (pos + count > pos))
Regards,
Harsh.
return -EOVERFLOW;
- if (file->f_mode& FMODE_UNSIGNED_OFFSET)
- return 0;
- return -EINVAL;
+ return 0;
}
/**
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
