From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: remove accidental overflow during wraparound check
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 10:05:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240512080511.yotlypw35qowwjoh@quack3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFhGd8opxHhTdZhDg_hq7XWQFxJ34nLDxTd-nBBgye9BLohnqw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu 09-05-24 15:10:07, Justin Stitt wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 8:53 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > @@ -319,8 +320,12 @@ int vfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> > > if (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && !S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode))
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > >
> > > - /* Check for wrap through zero too */
> > > - if (((offset + len) > inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes) || ((offset + len) < 0))
> > > + /* Check for wraparound */
> > > + if (check_add_overflow(offset, len, &sum))
> > > + return -EFBIG;
> > > +
> > > + /* Now, check bounds */
> > > + if (sum > inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes || sum < 0)
> > > return -EFBIG;
> >
> > But why do you check for sum < 0? We know from previous checks offset >= 0
> > && len > 0 so unless we overflow, sum is guaranteed to be > 0.
>
> Fair enough. I suppose with the overflow check in place we can no
> longer have a sum less than zero there. If nothing else, it tells
> readers of this code what the domain of (offset+len) is. I don't mind
> sending a new version, though.
Well, for normal readers offset+len is always a positive number. That's
what you expect. If you see a check for offset+len < 0, you start wondering
what are you missing... only to find you miss nothing and the check is
pointless. So yes, please send a version without the pointless check.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-13 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-07 23:17 [PATCH] fs: remove accidental overflow during wraparound check Justin Stitt
2024-05-08 0:10 ` Al Viro
2024-05-08 0:11 ` Kees Cook
2024-05-09 15:53 ` Jan Kara
2024-05-09 22:10 ` Justin Stitt
2024-05-12 8:05 ` Jan Kara [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240512080511.yotlypw35qowwjoh@quack3 \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=justinstitt@google.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=morbo@google.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).