On 11/28/20 4:45 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> From: Nadav Amit <[email protected]>
>
> It is possible to get an EINVAL error instead of EPERM if the following
> test vm_flags have VM_UFFD_WP but do not have VM_MAYWRITE, as "ret" is
> overwritten since commit cab350afcbc9 ("userfaultfd: hugetlbfs: allow
> registration of ranges containing huge pages").
>
> Fix it.
>
> Cc: Mike Kravetz <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Xu <[email protected]>
> Cc: Alexander Viro <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Fixes: cab350afcbc9 ("userfaultfd: hugetlbfs: allow registration of ranges
> containing huge pages")
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/userfaultfd.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> index 000b457ad087..c8ed4320370e 100644
> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -1364,6 +1364,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_register(struct userfaultfd_ctx
> *ctx,
> if (end & (vma_hpagesize - 1))
> goto out_unlock;
> }
> + ret = -EPERM;
> if ((vm_flags & VM_UFFD_WP) && !(cur->vm_flags & VM_MAYWRITE))
> goto out_unlock;
>
Thanks! We should return EPERM in that case.
However, the check for VM_UFFD_WP && !VM_MAYWRITE went in after commit
cab350afcbc9. I think it is more accurate to say that the issue was
introduced with commit 63b2d4174c4a ("Introduce the new uffd-wp APIs
for userspace."). The convention in userfaultfd_register() is that the
return code is set before testing condition which could cause return.
Therefore, when 63b2d4174c4a added the VM_UFFD_WP && !VM_MAYWRITE check,
it should have also added the 'ret = -EPERM;' statement.
With changes to commit message and Fixes tag,
Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <[email protected]>
--
Mike Kravetz
