On 4/14/2015 3:00 PM, Yann Droneaud wrote:
Hi,
Le mardi 14 avril 2015 à 12:20 +0300, Sagi Grimberg a écrit :
On 4/13/2015 3:56 PM, Yann Droneaud wrote:
In a call to ib_umem_get(), if address is 0x0 and size is
already page aligned, check added in commit 8494057ab5e4
("IB/uverbs: Prevent integer overflow in ib_umem_get address
arithmetic") will refuse to register a memory region that
could otherwise be valid (provided vm.mmap_min_addr sysctl
and mmap_low_allowed SELinux knobs allow userspace to map
something at address 0x0).
This patch allows back such registration: ib_umem_get()
should probably don't care of the base address provided it
can be pinned with get_user_pages().
There's two possible overflows, in (addr + size) and in
PAGE_ALIGN(addr + size), this patch keep ensuring none
of them happen while allowing to pin memory at address
0x0. Anyway, the case of size equal 0 is no more (partially)
handled as 0-length memory region are disallowed by an
earlier check.
Link: http://mid.gmane.org/cover.1428929103.git.ydrone...@opteya.com
Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 8494057ab5e4 ("IB/uverbs: Prevent integer overflow in
ib_umem_get address arithmetic")
Cc: Shachar Raindel <rain...@mellanox.com>
Cc: Jack Morgenstein <ja...@mellanox.com>
Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerl...@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Yann Droneaud <ydrone...@opteya.com>
---
drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
index 9ac4068d2088..38acb3cfc545 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
@@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ struct ib_umem *ib_umem_get(struct ib_ucontext *context,
unsigned long addr,
* If the combination of the addr and size requested for this memory
* region causes an integer overflow, return error.
*/
- if ((PAGE_ALIGN(addr + size) <= size) ||
- (PAGE_ALIGN(addr + size) <= addr))
+ if (((addr + size) < addr) ||
+ PAGE_ALIGN(addr + size) < (addr + size))
If you do change the first statement to be: (addr + size) <= addr
wouldn't it cover patch #1?
Yes, but it doesn't sound a great place to do it: here it's about
overflow, so I'd prefer not doing the null memory region check there.
Regards.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sa...@mellanox.com>
Let's poke Shachar/Haggai to comment/approve on this as well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
