Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: refuse wrapped vm_brk requests

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 07/12, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I tried to say that, with or without this change, sys_brk() should check
> > for overflow too, otherwise it looks buggy.
>
> Hmm, it's not clear to me the right way to fix sys_brk(), but it looks
> like my change to do_brk() would catch the problem?

How?

Once again, afaics nothing bad can happen, sys_brk() will silently fail,
just the code looks wrong anyway.

Suppose that newbrk == 0 due to overflow, then both

	if (find_vma_intersection(mm, oldbrk, newbrk+PAGE_SIZE))
		goto out;

and
	if (do_brk(oldbrk, newbrk-oldbrk) < 0)
		goto out;

look buggy.

find_vma_intersection(start_addr, end_addr) expects that start_addr < end_addr.
Again, we do not really care if it returns NULL or not, and newbrk == 0 just
means it will certainly return NULL if there is something above oldbrk. Just
looks buggy/confusing.

do_brk(0 - oldbrk) will fail and this is what we want. But not because
your change will catch the problem, PAGE_ALIGNE(-oldbrk) won't necessarily
overflow. However, -oldbrk > TASK_SIZE so get_unmapped_area() should fail.

Nevermind, this is almost off-topic, so let me repeat just in case that
both patches look good to me.

Oleg.