From: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
There is a hole in struct fs_quota_stat, so we have to
zero the struct on stack before copying it to user-space.
Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/fs/quota/quota.c b/fs/quota/quota.c
index c7314f1..2b0c182 100644
--- a/fs/quota/quota.c
+++ b/fs/quota/quota.c
@@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ static int quota_getxstate(struct super_block *sb, void __user *addr)
if (!sb->s_qcop->get_xstate)
return -ENOSYS;
+ memset(&fqs, 0, sizeof(fqs));
ret = sb->s_qcop->get_xstate(sb, &fqs);
if (!ret && copy_to_user(addr, &fqs, sizeof(fqs)))
return -EFAULT;
On Fri 10-05-13 17:24:33, Cong Wang wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
>
> There is a hole in struct fs_quota_stat, so we have to
> zero the struct on stack before copying it to user-space.
>
> Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
Good point. I've merged the patch.
BTW for XFS folks: The structure definition looks somewhat odd (unaligned
definition of qs_flags, qs_uquota starts only at 32-bit boundary although
it has 64-bit fields in it) and I wouldn't be surprised if it needed compat
wrapper for 32-bit apps on some architectures...
Honza
>
> ---
> diff --git a/fs/quota/quota.c b/fs/quota/quota.c
> index c7314f1..2b0c182 100644
> --- a/fs/quota/quota.c
> +++ b/fs/quota/quota.c
> @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ static int quota_getxstate(struct super_block *sb, void __user *addr)
>
> if (!sb->s_qcop->get_xstate)
> return -ENOSYS;
> + memset(&fqs, 0, sizeof(fqs));
> ret = sb->s_qcop->get_xstate(sb, &fqs);
> if (!ret && copy_to_user(addr, &fqs, sizeof(fqs)))
> return -EFAULT;
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
On Mon 13-05-13 12:04:23, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 10-05-13 17:24:33, Cong Wang wrote:
> > From: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
> >
> > There is a hole in struct fs_quota_stat, so we have to
> > zero the struct on stack before copying it to user-space.
> >
> > Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
> Good point. I've merged the patch.
Ah, now I've noticed that XFS (the only user of the callback you are
fixing) is zeroing the structure on its own (xfs_qm_scall_getqstat). So
there's no real problem. I'm somewhat wondering whether clearing the field
in the place where you did it isn't more future-proof but usually we don't
pass in prezeroed buffers so I've decided to leave things as they are.
Honza
> BTW for XFS folks: The structure definition looks somewhat odd (unaligned
> definition of qs_flags, qs_uquota starts only at 32-bit boundary although
> it has 64-bit fields in it) and I wouldn't be surprised if it needed compat
> wrapper for 32-bit apps on some architectures...
>
> Honza
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/fs/quota/quota.c b/fs/quota/quota.c
> > index c7314f1..2b0c182 100644
> > --- a/fs/quota/quota.c
> > +++ b/fs/quota/quota.c
> > @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ static int quota_getxstate(struct super_block *sb, void __user *addr)
> >
> > if (!sb->s_qcop->get_xstate)
> > return -ENOSYS;
> > + memset(&fqs, 0, sizeof(fqs));
> > ret = sb->s_qcop->get_xstate(sb, &fqs);
> > if (!ret && copy_to_user(addr, &fqs, sizeof(fqs)))
> > return -EFAULT;
> --
> Jan Kara <[email protected]>
> SUSE Labs, CR
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:18 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 13-05-13 12:04:23, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Fri 10-05-13 17:24:33, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > From: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > There is a hole in struct fs_quota_stat, so we have to
> > > zero the struct on stack before copying it to user-space.
> > >
> > > Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <[email protected]>
> > Good point. I've merged the patch.
> Ah, now I've noticed that XFS (the only user of the callback you are
> fixing) is zeroing the structure on its own (xfs_qm_scall_getqstat). So
> there's no real problem. I'm somewhat wondering whether clearing the field
> in the place where you did it isn't more future-proof but usually we don't
> pass in prezeroed buffers so I've decided to leave things as they are.
>
You are right. Thanks for looking into this!