From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, Luo Meng <luomeng12@huawei.com>
Cc: 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 13:48:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b2dc8ec275e9fc379398f95aba237e1224c86330.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201022172500.GA3613750@gmail.com>
On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 10:25 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 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...
>
That does seem less ambiguous.
Luo, if you're OK with that approach, I can just fix it up in-tree.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-22 17:49 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
2020-10-22 17:48 ` Jeff Layton [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=b2dc8ec275e9fc379398f95aba237e1224c86330.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=ebiggers@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).