Re: [PATCH] fs: use UB-safe check for signed addition overflow in remap_verify_area

From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: use UB-safe check for signed addition overflow in remap_verify_area
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 14:24:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230525-normung-essverhalten-5e8579dc8e15@brauner> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230525120935.GI30909@suse.cz>

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 02:09:35PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:16:17PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 May 2023 18:26:28 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > The following warning pops up with enabled UBSAN in tests fstests/generic/303:
> > > 
> > >   [23127.529395] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/read_write.c:1725:7
> > >   [23127.529400] signed integer overflow:
> > >   [23127.529403] 4611686018427322368 + 9223372036854775807 cannot be represented in type 'long long int'
> > >   [23127.529412] CPU: 4 PID: 26180 Comm: xfs_io Not tainted 5.2.0-rc2-1.ge195904-vanilla+ #450
> > >   [23127.556999] Hardware name: empty empty/S3993, BIOS PAQEX0-3 02/24/2008
> > >   [23127.557001] Call Trace:
> > >   [23127.557060]  dump_stack+0x67/0x9b
> > >   [23127.557070]  ubsan_epilogue+0x9/0x40
> > >   [23127.573496]  handle_overflow+0xb3/0xc0
> > >   [23127.573514]  do_clone_file_range+0x28f/0x2a0
> > >   [23127.573547]  vfs_clone_file_range+0x35/0xb0
> > >   [23127.573564]  ioctl_file_clone+0x8d/0xc0
> > >   [23127.590144]  do_vfs_ioctl+0x300/0x700
> > >   [23127.590160]  ksys_ioctl+0x70/0x80
> > >   [23127.590203]  ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
> > >   [23127.590210]  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
> > >   [23127.590215]  do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x1d0
> > >   [23127.590224]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> > >   [23127.590231] RIP: 0033:0x7ff6d7250327
> > >   [23127.590241] RSP: 002b:00007ffe3a38f1d8 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> > >   [23127.590246] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 00007ff6d7250327
> > >   [23127.590249] RDX: 00007ffe3a38f220 RSI: 000000004020940d RDI: 0000000000000003
> > >   [23127.590252] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 00007ffe3a3c80a0 R09: 00007ffe3a3c8080
> > >   [23127.590255] R10: 000000000fa99fa0 R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 0000000000000000
> > >   [23127.590260] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 3fffffffffff0000 R15: 00007ff6d750a20c
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Independent of this fix it is a bit strange that we have this
> > discrepancy between struct file_clone_range using u64s and the internal
> > apis using loff_t. It's not a big deal but it's a bit ugly.
> 
> The file_clone_range used to be a private btrfs ioctl with u64 types
> that got lifted to VFS, inheriting the types.
> 
> 04b38d601239 ("vfs: pull btrfs clone API to vfs layer")

Yeah, I saw that when I looked up the history. I understand why it
happened it's just a bit unforunate. Thanks!