On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 07:59:37PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 12:08:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Just as a precaution, make sure that proc handlers don't accidentally
> > grow "count" beyond the allocated kbuf size.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > This applies to hch's sysctl cleanup tree...
> > ---
> > fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> > index 15030784566c..535ab26473af 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> > @@ -546,6 +546,7 @@ static ssize_t proc_sys_call_handler(struct file *filp, void __user *ubuf,
> > struct inode *inode = file_inode(filp);
> > struct ctl_table_header *head = grab_header(inode);
> > struct ctl_table *table = PROC_I(inode)->sysctl_entry;
> > + size_t count_max = count;
> > void *kbuf;
> > ssize_t error;
> >
> > @@ -590,6 +591,8 @@ static ssize_t proc_sys_call_handler(struct file *filp, void __user *ubuf,
> >
> > if (!write) {
> > error = -EFAULT;
> > + if (WARN_ON(count > count_max))
> > + count = count_max;
>
> That crash a system with panic-on-warn. I don't think we want that?
Eh? None of the handlers should be making this mistake currently and
it's not a mistake that can be controlled from userspace. WARN() is
absolutely what's wanted here: report an impossible situation (and
handle it gracefully for the bulk of users that don't have
panic_on_warn set).
--
Kees Cook
