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;
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:32:22 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, adobriyan@gmail.com,
        mingfangsen@huawei.com, wangxiaogang3@huawei.com,
        "Zhoukang (A)" <zhoukang7@huawei.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] sysctl: add proc_dointvec_jiffies_minmax to limit
 the min/max write value
Message-ID: <20190702193222.GP19023@42.do-not-panic.com>
References: <032e024f-2b1b-a980-1b53-d903bc8db297@huawei.com>
 <3e421384-a9cb-e534-3370-953c56883516@huawei.com>
 <d5138655-41a8-0177-ae0d-c4674112bf56@huawei.com>
 <201905150945.C9D1F811F@keescook>
 <dd40ae3b-8e0a-2d55-d402-6f261a6c0e09@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dd40ae3b-8e0a-2d55-d402-6f261a6c0e09@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 11:27:51PM +0800, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:53:55PM +0800, Zhiqiang Liu wrote:
> >>>> In proc_dointvec_jiffies func, the write value is only checked
> >>>> whether it is larger than INT_MAX. If the write value is less
> >>>> than zero, it can also be successfully writen in the data.
> > 
> > This appears to be "be design", but I see many "unsigned int" users
> > that might be tricked into giant values... (for example, see
> > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c)
> > 
> > Should proc_dointvec_jiffies() just be fixed to disallow negative values
> > entirely? Looking at the implementation, it seems to be very intentional
> > about accepting negative values.
> > 
> > However, when I looked through a handful of proc_dointvec_jiffies()
> > users, it looks like they're all expecting a positive value. Many in the
> > networking subsystem are, in fact, writing to unsigned long variables,
> > as I mentioned.
> > 
> I totally agree with you. And I also cannot find an scenario that expects
> negative values. Consideing the "negative" scenario may be exist, I add the
> proc_dointvec_jiffies_minmax like proc_dointvec_minmax.

If no negative values exist, and there is no real point to it, then just
rename the existing one and update the docs.

  Luis