linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] off-by-one in get_mempolicy(2)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:05:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191009140559.GY26530@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)

	get_mempolicy(2) and related syscalls have always passed
1 + number of bits in nodemask as maxnodes argument - see e.g.
copy_nodes_to_user() and get_nodes().  Or libnuma, for the userland
side -
static void getpol(int *oldpolicy, struct bitmask *bmp)
{
        if (get_mempolicy(oldpolicy, bmp->maskp, bmp->size + 1, 0, 0) < 0)
                numa_error("get_mempolicy");
}
and similar for other syscalls.  However, the check for insufficient
destination size in get_mempolicy(2) used to be
        if (nmask != NULL && maxnode < MAX_NUMNODES)
                return -EINVAL;
IOW, maxnode == MAX_NUMNODES (representing "MAX_NUMNODES - 1 bits")
had been accepted.  The reason why that hadn't messed libnuma
logics used to determine the required bitmap size is that
MAX_NUMNODES is always a power of 2 and the loop in libnuma
is
                nodemask_sz = 16;
                do {
                        nodemask_sz <<= 1;
                        mask = realloc(mask, nodemask_sz / 8);
                        if (!mask)
                                return;
                } while (get_mempolicy(&pol, mask, nodemask_sz + 1, 0, 0) < 0 && errno == EINVAL &&
                                nodemask_sz < 4096*8);
I.e. it's been passing 33, 65, 127, etc. until it got it large enough.
That sidesteps the boundary case - we never try to pass exactly
MAX_NUMNODES there.

However, that has changed recently, when get_mempolicy() switched
to 
        if (nmask != NULL && maxnode < nr_node_ids)
                return -EINVAL;
_That_ can trigger.  Consider a box with nr_node_ids == 65.
The first call in libnuma:set_nodemask_size() loop will
pass 33 and fail, then we'll raise nodemask_sz to 64,
allocate a 64bit mask and call get_mempolicy(&pol, mask, 65, 0, 0),
which will succeed.  OK, so we decide to use 64bit bitmaps, and
subsequent getpol() will be passing 65 to get_mempolicy(2).  Which
is not a good idea, since kernel-side we'll get
	copy_nodes_to_user(nmask, 65, &nodes)
And that will copy only 8 bytes out of kernel-side bitmap with
65 bits in it...

IOW, that check always should had been <=, not <; it didn't matter
until commit 050c17f239fd ("numa: change get_mempolicy() to use
nr_node_ids instead of MAX_NUMNODES") this year.  The fix is trivial
- we need to make that check consistent with the code that does
actual copyin/copyout.

Fixes: 050c17f239fd ("numa: change get_mempolicy() to use nr_node_ids instead of MAX_NUMNODES")
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 4ae967bcf954..e184df7633b0 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1561,7 +1561,7 @@ static int kernel_get_mempolicy(int __user *policy,
 
 	addr = untagged_addr(addr);
 
-	if (nmask != NULL && maxnode < nr_node_ids)
+	if (nmask != NULL && maxnode <= nr_node_ids)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	err = do_get_mempolicy(&pval, &nodes, addr, flags);


             reply	other threads:[~2019-10-09 14:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-09 14:05 Al Viro [this message]
2019-10-09 14:48 ` [PATCH] off-by-one in get_mempolicy(2) Vlastimil Babka

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=20191009140559.GY26530@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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).