On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 11:29:15AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2024 at 02:27:36PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The fxr->file1_offset and fxr->file2_offset variables come from the user
> > in xfs_ioc_exchange_range(). They are size loff_t which is an s64.
> > Check the they aren't negative.
> >
> > Fixes: 9a64d9b3109d ("xfs: introduce new file range exchange ioctl")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > From static analysis. Untested. Sorry!
> >
> > fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c
> > index c8a655c92c92..3465e152d928 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_exchrange.c
> > @@ -337,6 +337,9 @@ xfs_exchange_range_checks(
> > if (IS_SWAPFILE(inode1) || IS_SWAPFILE(inode2))
> > return -ETXTBSY;
> >
> > + if (fxr->file1_offset < 0 || fxr->file2_offset < 0)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Aren't the operational offset/lengths already checked for underflow
> and overflow via xfs_exchange_range_verify_area()?
Ah right. Smatch complains in the middle of the two calls to
xfs_exchange_range_verify_area(). (It get's called in different places
depending on if the XFS_EXCHANGE_RANGE_TO_EOF flag is set).
regards,
dan carpenter
