On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:35 AM, William Kucharski <william.kucharski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On Nov 13, 2018, at 5:51 PM, Isaac J. Manjarres <isaacm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> diff --git a/mm/usercopy.c b/mm/usercopy.c >> index 852eb4e..0293645 100644 >> --- a/mm/usercopy.c >> +++ b/mm/usercopy.c >> @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static inline void check_bogus_address(const unsigned long ptr, unsigned long n, >> bool to_user) >> { >> /* Reject if object wraps past end of memory. */ >> - if (ptr + n < ptr) >> + if (ptr + (n - 1) < ptr) >> usercopy_abort("wrapped address", NULL, to_user, 0, ptr + n); > > I'm being paranoid, but is it possible this routine could ever be passed "n" set to zero? It's a single-use inline, and zero is tested just before getting called: /* Skip all tests if size is zero. */ if (!n) return; /* Check for invalid addresses. */ check_bogus_address((const unsigned long)ptr, n, to_user); > > If so, it will erroneously abort indicating a wrapped address as (n - 1) wraps to ULONG_MAX. > > Easily fixed via: > > if ((n != 0) && (ptr + (n - 1) < ptr)) Agreed. Thanks for noticing this! -Kees -- Kees Cook