From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752232AbcGLNjY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:39:24 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41108 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750770AbcGLNjW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:39:22 -0400
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:39:42 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hector Marco-Gisbert <hecmargi@upv.es>,
        Ismael Ripoll Ripoll <iripoll@upv.es>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: refuse wrapped vm_brk requests
Message-ID: <20160712133942.GA28837@redhat.com>
References: <1468014494-25291-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <1468014494-25291-3-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <20160711122826.GA969@redhat.com> <CAGXu5j+efUrhOTikpuYK0V8Eqv58f5rQBMOYDqiVM-JWrqRbLA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+efUrhOTikpuYK0V8Eqv58f5rQBMOYDqiVM-JWrqRbLA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:39:22 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 07/11, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > and thus this patch fixes the error code returned by do_brk() in case
> > of overflow, now it returns -ENOMEM rather than zero. Perhaps
> >
> >         if (!len)
> >                 return 0;
> >         len = PAGE_ALIGN(len);
> >         if (!len)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > would be more clear but this is subjective.
>
> I'm fine either way.

Me too, so feel free to ignore,

> > I am wondering if we should shift this overflow check to the caller(s).
> > Say, sys_brk() does find_vma_intersection(mm, oldbrk, newbrk+PAGE_SIZE)
> > before do_brk(), and in case of overflow find_vma_intersection() can
> > wrongly return NULL.
> >
> > Then do_brk() will be called with len = -oldbrk, this can overflow or
> > not but in any case this doesn't look right too.
> >
> > Or I am totally confused?
>
> I think the callers shouldn't request a negative value, sure, but
> vm_brk should notice and refuse it.

Not sure I understand...

I tried to say that, with or without this change, sys_brk() should check
for overflow too, otherwise it looks buggy.

Oleg.