On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 01:18:01PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 12:15:13AM +0000, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The less than zero comparison of args.cgroup is aways false because
> > args.cgroup is a u64 and can never be less than zero. I believe the
> > correct check is to cast args.cgroup to a s64 first to ensure an
> > invalid value is not copied to kargs->cgroup.
> >
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Unsigned compared against 0")
> > Fixes: ef2c41cf38a7 ("clone3: allow spawning processes into cgroups")
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks, Colin.
> Dan has reported this issue a few days prior on the janitors list so he
> likely should get a
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> too.
Colin found it independently so no need for a Reported-by.
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 2diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 2853e258fe1f..dca4dde3b5b2 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -2618,7 +2618,8 @@ noinline static int copy_clone_args_from_user(struct kernel_clone_args *kargs,
> !valid_signal(args.exit_signal)))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if ((args.flags & CLONE_INTO_CGROUP) && args.cgroup < 0)
> + if ((args.flags & CLONE_INTO_CGROUP) &&
> + (args.cgroup > INT_MAX || (s64)args.cgroup < 0))
If we're capping it at INT_MAX then the check for negative isn't
required and static analysis tools know it's not so they might complain.
regards,
dan carpenter
