Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: adjust max read count in generic_file_buffered_read()
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     mgorman@techsingularity.net, jlayton@redhat.com,
        ak@linux.intel.com, mawilcox@microsoft.com,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180719081726.3341-1-cgxu519@gmx.com>
 <20180719085812.sjup2odrjyuigt3l@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20180720161429.d63dccb9f66799dc0ff74dba@linux-foundation.org>
 <20180806102203.hmobd26cujmlfcsw@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20180806155927.4740babd057df9d5078281b1@linux-foundation.org>
 <20180807135453.nhatdtw25wa6dtzm@quack2.suse.cz>
From:   cgxu519 <cgxu519@gmx.com>
Message-ID: <7be05929-a5d0-e0b0-9d48-705c3840ee95@gmx.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 08:57:13 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180807135453.nhatdtw25wa6dtzm@quack2.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 08/07/2018 09:54 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 06-08-18 15:59:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 12:22:03 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri 20-07-18 16:14:29, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:58:12 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu 19-07-18 16:17:26, Chengguang Xu wrote:
>>>>>> When we try to truncate read count in generic_file_buffered_read(),
>>>>>> should deliver (sb->s_maxbytes - offset) as maximum count not
>>>>>> sb->s_maxbytes itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@gmx.com>
>>>>> Looks good to me. You can add:
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>>>> Yup.
>>>>
>>>> What are the runtime effects of this bug?
>>> Good question. I think ->readpage() could be called for index beyond
>>> maximum file size supported by the filesystem leading to weird filesystem
>>> behavior due to overflows in internal calculations.
>>>
>> Sure.  But is it possible for userspace to trigger this behaviour?
>> Possibly all callers have already sanitized the arguments by this stage
>> in which case the statement is arguably redundant.
> So I don't think there's any sanitization going on before
> generic_file_buffered_read(). E.g. I don't see any s_maxbytes check on
> ksys_read() -> vfs_read() -> __vfs_read() -> new_sync_read() ->
> call_read_iter() -> generic_file_read_iter() ->
> generic_file_buffered_read() path... However now thinking about this again:
> We are guaranteed i_size is within s_maxbytes (places modifying i_size
> are checking for this) and generic_file_buffered_read() stops when it
> should read beyond i_size. So in the end I don't think there's any breakage
> possible and the patch is not necessary?
>
I think most of time i_size is within s_maxbytes in local filesystem,
but consider network filesystem, write big file in 64bit client and
read in 32bit client, in this case maybe generic_file_buffered_read()
can read more than s_maxbytes, right?


Thanks,
Chengguang