On 2017/6/13 20:13, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 13:35 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> fcntl(0, F_SETOWN, 0x80000000) triggers: >> UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/fcntl.c:118:7 >> negation of -2147483648 cannot be represented in type 'int': >> CPU: 1 PID: 18261 Comm: syz-executor Not tainted 4.8.1-0-syzkaller #1 >> ... >> Call Trace: >> ... >> [<ffffffffad8f0868>] ? f_setown+0x1d8/0x200 >> [<ffffffffad8f19a9>] ? SyS_fcntl+0x999/0xf30 >> [<ffffffffaed1fb00>] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 >> >> Fix that by checking the arg parameter properly (against INT_MAX) before >> "who = -who". And return immediatelly with -EINVAL in case it is wrong. >> Note that according to POSIX we can return EINVAL: >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/fcntl.html >> >> [EINVAL] >> The cmd argument is F_SETOWN and the value of the argument >> is not valid as a process or process group identifier. >> >> [v2] returns an error, v1 used to fail silently >> [v3] implement proper check for the bad value INT_MIN >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]> >> Cc: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> >> Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> >> Cc: Alexander Viro <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> --- >> fs/fcntl.c | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/fcntl.c b/fs/fcntl.c >> index 313eba860346..693322e28751 100644 >> --- a/fs/fcntl.c >> +++ b/fs/fcntl.c >> @@ -116,6 +116,10 @@ int f_setown(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg, int >> force) >> int who = arg; >> type = PIDTYPE_PID; >> if (who < 0) { >> + /* avoid overflow below */ >> + if (who == INT_MIN) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> type = PIDTYPE_PGID; >> who = -who; >> } > Seems reasonable. > > I do somewhat lean toward checking for all larger values, but there > could be userland programs that leave the upper bits set when they cast > this to unsigned long. This is probably the safer thing to do. > > I'll plan to pick these up for v4.12. > > On the other related note...I think we ought to return ESRCH when > find_vpid returns NULL. I'll take a look at that sometime soon too. > > Thanks! hi, jeff
I have sent the patch about find_vpid ,and exist in linux-next branch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9766259/ Thanks zhongjiang
