On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:32:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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 would 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).
Alrighty, Greg are you OK with this type of WARN_ON()? You recently
expressed concerns over its use due to panic-on-warn on another patch.
LUis
