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, 5 Oct 2021 17:21:29 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ELF: fix overflow in total mapping size calculation
Message-Id: <20211005172129.4092cc4148bbcac36a128b55@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <YVmd7D0M6G/DcP4O@localhost.localdomain>
References: <YVmd7D0M6G/DcP4O@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 15:11:24 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kernel assumes that ELF program headers are ordered by mapping address,
> but doesn't enforce it. It is possible to make mapping size extremely huge
> by simply shuffling first and last PT_LOAD segments.
> 
> As long as PT_LOAD segments do not overlap, it is silly to require
> sorting by v_addr anyway because mmap() doesn't care.
> 
> Don't assume PT_LOAD segments are sorted and calculate min and max
> addresses correctly.

It sounds good, but why do I have the feeling this will explode in some
unexpected fashion?  Because it's elf, and that's what it does :(