5.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Zhong Jinghua <zhongjinghua@xxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 9f6ad5d533d1c71e51bdd06a5712c4fbc8768dfa ]
In loop_set_status_from_info(), lo->lo_offset and lo->lo_sizelimit should
be checked before reassignment, because if an overflow error occurs, the
original correct value will be changed to the wrong value, and it will not
be changed back.
More, the original patch did not solve the problem, the value was set and
ioctl returned an error, but the subsequent io used the value in the loop
driver, which still caused an alarm:
loop_handle_cmd
do_req_filebacked
loff_t pos = ((loff_t) blk_rq_pos(rq) << 9) + lo->lo_offset;
lo_rw_aio
cmd->iocb.ki_pos = pos
Fixes: c490a0b5a4f3 ("loop: Check for overflow while configuring loop")
Signed-off-by: Zhong Jinghua <zhongjinghua@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230221095027.3656193-1-zhongjinghua@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Genjian Zhang <zhanggenjian@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1296,13 +1296,13 @@ loop_set_status_from_info(struct loop_de
if (err)
return err;
+ /* Avoid assigning overflow values */
+ if (info->lo_offset > LLONG_MAX || info->lo_sizelimit > LLONG_MAX)
+ return -EOVERFLOW;
+
lo->lo_offset = info->lo_offset;
lo->lo_sizelimit = info->lo_sizelimit;
- /* loff_t vars have been assigned __u64 */
- if (lo->lo_offset < 0 || lo->lo_sizelimit < 0)
- return -EOVERFLOW;
-
memcpy(lo->lo_file_name, info->lo_file_name, LO_NAME_SIZE);
memcpy(lo->lo_crypt_name, info->lo_crypt_name, LO_NAME_SIZE);
lo->lo_file_name[LO_NAME_SIZE-1] = 0;
