Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 09:47:28 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     "Alex Xu (Hello71)" <alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Andrey Ignatov <rdna@fb.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc_sysctl: clamp sizes using table->maxlen
Message-ID: <20210216084728.GA23731@lst.de>
References: <20210215145305.283064-1-alex_y_xu.ref@yahoo.ca> <20210215145305.283064-1-alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210215145305.283064-1-alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 09:53:05AM -0500, Alex Xu (Hello71) wrote:
> Since maxlen is already exposed, we can allocate approximately the right
> amount directly, fixing up those drivers which set a bogus maxlen. These
> drivers were located based on those which had copy_x_user replaced in
> 32927393dc1c, on the basis that other drivers either use builtin proc_*
> handlers, or do not access the data pointer. The latter is OK because
> maxlen only needs to be an upper limit.

Please split this into one patch each each subsystem that sets maxlen
to 0 and the actual change to proc_sysctl.c.

How do these maxlen = 0 entries even survive the sysctl_check_table
check?