On Dec 6, 2016, at 6:02 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:43:37PM -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lustre Devs,
>>>
>>> The patch d7e09d0397e8: "staging: add Lustre file system client
>>> support" from May 2, 2013, leads to the following static checker
>>> warning:
>>>
>>> drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/console.c:1336 lstcon_test_add()
>>> error: 'paramlen' from user is not capped properly
>>>
>>> The story here, is that "paramlen" is capped but only if "param" is
>>> non-NULL. This causes a problem.
>>>
>>> drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/console.c
>>> 1311
>>> 1312 LIBCFS_ALLOC(test, offsetof(struct lstcon_test,
>>> tes_param[paramlen]));
>>>
>>> We don't know that paramlen is non-NULL here. Because of integer
>>> overflows we could end up allocating less than intended.
>>
>> I think this must be a false positive in this case?
>>
>> Before calling this function we do:
>> LIBCFS_ALLOC(param, args->lstio_tes_param_len);
>>
>> in lst_test_add_ioctl(), so it's not any bigger than 128k (or kmalloc will
>> fail).
>> Even if kmalloc would allow more than 128k allocations,
>> offsetof(struct lstcon_test, tes_param[0]) is bound to be a lot smaller than
>> the baseline allocation address for kmalloc, and therefore integer overflow
>> cannot happen at all.
>>
>
> I explained badly, and I typed the wrong variable names by mistake...
> Here is the relevant code from the caller:
>
> drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conctl.c
> 710 static int lst_test_add_ioctl(lstio_test_args_t *args)
> 711 {
> 712 char *batch_name;
> 713 char *src_name = NULL;
> 714 char *dst_name = NULL;
> 715 void *param = NULL;
> 716 int ret = 0;
> 717 int rc = -ENOMEM;
> 718
> 719 if (!args->lstio_tes_resultp ||
> 720 !args->lstio_tes_retp ||
> 721 !args->lstio_tes_bat_name || /* no specified batch
> */
> 722 args->lstio_tes_bat_nmlen <= 0 ||
> 723 args->lstio_tes_bat_nmlen > LST_NAME_SIZE ||
> 724 !args->lstio_tes_sgrp_name || /* no source group */
> 725 args->lstio_tes_sgrp_nmlen <= 0 ||
> 726 args->lstio_tes_sgrp_nmlen > LST_NAME_SIZE ||
> 727 !args->lstio_tes_dgrp_name || /* no target group */
> 728 args->lstio_tes_dgrp_nmlen <= 0 ||
> 729 args->lstio_tes_dgrp_nmlen > LST_NAME_SIZE)
> 730 return -EINVAL;
> 731
> 732 if (!args->lstio_tes_loop || /* negative is
> infinite */
> 733 args->lstio_tes_concur <= 0 ||
> 734 args->lstio_tes_dist <= 0 ||
> 735 args->lstio_tes_span <= 0)
> 736 return -EINVAL;
> 737
> 738 /* have parameter, check if parameter length is valid */
> 739 if (args->lstio_tes_param &&
> 740 (args->lstio_tes_param_len <= 0 ||
> 741 args->lstio_tes_param_len >
> 742 PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct lstcon_test)))
> 743 return -EINVAL;
>
> If we don't have a parameter then we don't check ->lstio_tes_param_len.
I see, indeed, it all makes sense now.
So basically if we unconditionally check for the size to be > 0, we should be
fine then, I imagine.
On the other hand there's probably no se for no param and nonzero param len,
so it's probably even better to enforce size as zero when no param.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
