On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:31:57AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > 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> > > 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. It isn't, but it's easier to understand for the reader. But I don't care that much and if it's trouble for tools than fine. Christian
