From: Naotaka Hamaguchi <n.hamaguchi@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm: mmap() sometimes succeeds even if the region to map is invalid.
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:43:05 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F3E1319.6050304@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
This patch fixes two bugs of mmap():
1. mmap() succeeds even if "offset" argument is a negative value, although
it should return EINVAL in such case. Currently I have only checked
it on x86_64 because (a) x86 seems to OK to accept a negative offset
for mapping 2GB-4GB regions, and (b) I don't know about other
architectures at all (I'll make it if needed).
2. mmap() would succeed if "offset" + "length" get overflow, although
it should return EOVERFLOW.
The detail of these problems is as follows:
1. mmap() succeeds even if "offset" argument is a negative value, although
it should return EINVAL in such case.
POSIX says the type of the argument "off" is "off_t", which
is equivalent to "long" for all architecture, so it is allowed to
give a negative "off" to mmap().
In such case, it is actually regarded as big positive value
because the type of "off" is "unsigned long" in the kernel.
For example, off=-4096 (-0x1000) is regarded as
off = 0xfffffffffffff000 (x86_64) and as off = 0xfffff000 (x86).
It results in mapping too big offset region.
2. mmap() would succeed if "offset" + "length" get overflow, although
it should return EOVERFLOW.
The overflow check of mmap() almost doesn't work.
In do_mmap_pgoff(file, addr, len, prot, flags, pgoff),
the existing overflow check logic is as follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
unsigned long len, unsigned long prot,
unsigned long flags, unsigned long pgoff)
{
if ((pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT)) < pgoff)
return -EOVERFLOW;
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, for example on x86_64, if we give off=0x1000 and
len=0xfffffffffffff000, but EOVERFLOW is not returned.
It is because the checking is based on the page offset,
not on the byte offset.
To fix this bug, I convert this overflow check from page
offset base to byte offset base.
Signed-off-by: Naotaka Hamaguchi <n.hamaguchi@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c | 3 +++
mm/mmap.c | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
index 0514890..ddefd6c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c
@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(mmap, unsigned long, addr, unsigned long, len,
if (off & ~PAGE_MASK)
goto out;
+ if ((off_t) off < 0)
+ goto out;
+
error = sys_mmap_pgoff(addr, len, prot, flags, fd, off >> PAGE_SHIFT);
out:
return error;
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index 3f758c7..2fa99cd 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -948,6 +948,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
vm_flags_t vm_flags;
int error;
unsigned long reqprot = prot;
+ unsigned long off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
/*
* Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC?
@@ -971,7 +972,7 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
return -ENOMEM;
/* offset overflow? */
- if ((pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT)) < pgoff)
+ if ((off + len) < off)
return -EOVERFLOW;
/* Too many mappings? */
--
1.7.7.4
Best Regards,
Naotaka Hamaguchi
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next reply other threads:[~2012-02-17 8:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-17 8:43 Naotaka Hamaguchi [this message]
2012-02-17 9:04 ` Venu Byravarasu
2012-02-20 7:23 ` Naotaka Hamaguchi
2012-02-18 2:00 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-21 8:30 ` Naotaka Hamaguchi
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=4F3E1319.6050304@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=n.hamaguchi@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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