From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Luo Meng <luomeng12@huawei.com>
Cc: jlayton@kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: Fix UBSAN undefined behaviour in flock64_to_posix_lock
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:25:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201022172500.GA3613750@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201022020341.2434316-1-luomeng12@huawei.com>
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:03:41AM +0800, Luo Meng wrote:
> When the sum of fl->fl_start and l->l_len overflows,
> UBSAN shows the following warning:
>
> UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/locks.c:482:29
> signed integer overflow: 2 + 9223372036854775806
> cannot be represented in type 'long long int'
> Call Trace:
> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
> dump_stack+0xe4/0x14e lib/dump_stack.c:118
> ubsan_epilogue+0xe/0x81 lib/ubsan.c:161
> handle_overflow+0x193/0x1e2 lib/ubsan.c:192
> flock64_to_posix_lock fs/locks.c:482 [inline]
> flock_to_posix_lock+0x595/0x690 fs/locks.c:515
> fcntl_setlk+0xf3/0xa90 fs/locks.c:2262
> do_fcntl+0x456/0xf60 fs/fcntl.c:387
> __do_sys_fcntl fs/fcntl.c:483 [inline]
> __se_sys_fcntl fs/fcntl.c:468 [inline]
> __x64_sys_fcntl+0x12d/0x180 fs/fcntl.c:468
> do_syscall_64+0xc8/0x5a0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:293
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>
> Fix it by moving -1 forward.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luo Meng <luomeng12@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 1f84a03601fe..8489787ca97e 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ static int flock64_to_posix_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl,
> if (l->l_len > 0) {
> if (l->l_len - 1 > OFFSET_MAX - fl->fl_start)
> return -EOVERFLOW;
> - fl->fl_end = fl->fl_start + l->l_len - 1;
> + fl->fl_end = fl->fl_start - 1 + l->l_len;
>
Given what the bounds check just above does, wouldn't it make more sense to
parenthesize 'l->l_len - 1' instead? So:
fl->fl_end = fl->fl_start + (l->l_len - 1);
Also FWIW, the Linux kernel uses the -fwrapv compiler flag, so signed integer
overflow is defined. IMO it's still best avoided though...
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-22 17:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-22 2:03 [PATCH] locks: Fix UBSAN undefined behaviour in flock64_to_posix_lock Luo Meng
2020-10-22 13:21 ` Jeff Layton
2020-10-22 14:51 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-10-22 17:25 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2020-10-22 17:48 ` Jeff Layton
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=20201022172500.GA3613750@gmail.com \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luomeng12@huawei.com \
--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 NNTP newsgroup(s).