Re: [PATCH] mm: fix VMA heap bounds checking

[Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>]

On 2023/12/8 6:16, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 23:25:25 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
>> After selinux converting to VMA heap check helper, the gcl triggers
>> an execheap SELinux denial, which caused by different check logical.
>>
>> The old from selinux only check VMA range within VMA heap range, and
>> the new will check the intersects between the two ranges, but the corner
>> cases(vm_end=start_brk, brk=vm_start) doesn't be handled correctly.
>>
>> Since commit 11250fd12eb8 ("mm: factor out VMA stack and heap checks")
>> only a function extraction, it seems that the issue introduced from
>> commit 0db0c01b53a1 ("procfs: fix /proc/<pid>/maps heap check"), let's
>> fix above corner cases, meanwhile, corrent the wrong indentation of the
>> stack and heap check helpers.
>>
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/selinux/CAFqZXNv0SVT0fkOK6neP9AXbj3nxJ61JAY4+zJzvxqJaeuhbFw@mail.gmail.com/
>> Fixes: 0db0c01b53a1 ("procfs: fix /proc/<pid>/maps heap check")
> 
> I suggest this should be Fixes: 11250fd12eb8 ("mm: factor out VMA stack and
> heap checks").  Sure, 0db0c01b53a1 may have been wrong, but is there
> any point in suggesting to people that they backport this fix over 12 years
> worth of kernels?  Or is it the case that only kernels which contain
> 11250fd12eb8 need this change?

Fair enough, also thanks for updating the commit message.
>