On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 05:37:22 +0200 Jann Horn <jannh at google.com> wrote: > The first checks in mtdchar_read() and mtdchar_write() attempt to limit > `count` such that `*ppos + count <= mtd->size`. However, they ignore the > possibility of `*ppos > mtd->size`, allowing the calculation of `count` to > wrap around. `mtdchar_lseek()` prevents seeking beyond mtd->size, but the > pread/pwrite syscalls bypass this. > > I haven't found any codepath on which this actually causes dangerous > behavior, but it seems like a sensible change anyway. > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") > Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh at google.com> > --- > drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c | 10 +++++++--- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c > index cd67c85cc87d..02389528f622 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdchar.c > @@ -160,8 +160,12 @@ static ssize_t mtdchar_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, > > pr_debug("MTD_read\n"); > > - if (*ppos + count > mtd->size) > - count = mtd->size - *ppos; > + if (*ppos + count > mtd->size) { > + if (*ppos < mtd->size) > + count = mtd->size - *ppos; > + else > + count = 0; > + } Hm, shouldn't we return -ERANGE or -EINVAL if *ppos >= mtd->size? > > if (!count) > return 0; > @@ -246,7 +250,7 @@ static ssize_t mtdchar_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, size_t c > > pr_debug("MTD_write\n"); > > - if (*ppos == mtd->size) > + if (*ppos >= mtd->size) > return -ENOSPC; > > if (*ppos + count > mtd->size)