From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965332AbeALWwL (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:52:11 -0500
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:46594 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S964945AbeALWwK (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:52:10 -0500
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:52:08 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] elf: fix NT_FILE integer overflow
Message-Id: <20180112145208.b054caf00c6fa666cc1a1c9c@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180112203427.GA9109@avx2>
References: <20180112203427.GA9109@avx2>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 23:34:27 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:

> If vm.max_map_count bumped above 2^26 (67+ mil) and system has enough
> RAM to allocate all the VMAs (~12.8 GB on Fedora 27 with 200-byte VMAs),
> then it should be possible to overflow 32-bit "size", pass paranoia check,
> allocate very little vmalloc space and oops while writing into vmalloc
> guard page...
> 
> But I didn't test this, only coredump of regular process.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> @@ -1599,6 +1599,8 @@ static int fill_files_note(struct memelfnote *note)
>  
>  	/* *Estimated* file count and total data size needed */
>  	count = current->mm->map_count;
> +	if (count > UINT_MAX / 64)
> +		return -EINVAL;
>  	size = count * 64;
>  
>  	names_ofs = (2 + 3 * count) * sizeof(data[0]);

Why not make `size' a ulong (or size_t)?  That seems to be the
appropriate type and the code will then immediately barf over the
MAX_FILE_NOTE_SIZE comparison anyway.