Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FFBC7618A for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 02:48:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229668AbjCTCr7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Mar 2023 22:47:59 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36626 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229825AbjCTCrt (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Mar 2023 22:47:49 -0400 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EF6A20692 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2023 19:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dggpemm500014.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4PfzbY3Q4Fz17MKr; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:44:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (10.175.112.125) by dggpemm500014.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.21; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:47:44 +0800 From: Wupeng Ma To: CC: , , , , , Subject: [PATCH v4 1/4] mm/mlock: return EINVAL if len overflows for mlock/munlock Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:47:36 +0800 Message-ID: <20230320024739.224850-2-mawupeng1@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.1 In-Reply-To: <20230320024739.224850-1-mawupeng1@huawei.com> References: <20230320024739.224850-1-mawupeng1@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Originating-IP: [10.175.112.125] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To dggpemm500014.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.153) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Ma Wupeng While testing mlock, we have a problem if the len of mlock is ULONG_MAX. The return value of mlock is zero. But nothing will be locked since the len in do_mlock overflows to zero due to the following code in mlock: len = PAGE_ALIGN(len + (offset_in_page(start))); The same problem happens in munlock. Add new check and return -EINVAL to fix this overflowing scenarios since they are absolutely wrong. Signed-off-by: Ma Wupeng --- mm/mlock.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c index 617469fce96d..eb68476da497 100644 --- a/mm/mlock.c +++ b/mm/mlock.c @@ -568,6 +568,7 @@ static __must_check int do_mlock(unsigned long start, size_t len, vm_flags_t fla unsigned long locked; unsigned long lock_limit; int error = -ENOMEM; + size_t old_len = len; start = untagged_addr(start); @@ -577,6 +578,9 @@ static __must_check int do_mlock(unsigned long start, size_t len, vm_flags_t fla len = PAGE_ALIGN(len + (offset_in_page(start))); start &= PAGE_MASK; + if (old_len != 0 && len == 0) + return -EINVAL; + lock_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK); lock_limit >>= PAGE_SHIFT; locked = len >> PAGE_SHIFT; @@ -631,12 +635,16 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mlock2, unsigned long, start, size_t, len, int, flags) SYSCALL_DEFINE2(munlock, unsigned long, start, size_t, len) { int ret; + size_t old_len = len; start = untagged_addr(start); len = PAGE_ALIGN(len + (offset_in_page(start))); start &= PAGE_MASK; + if (old_len != 0 && len == 0) + return -EINVAL; + if (mmap_write_lock_killable(current->mm)) return -EINTR; ret = apply_vma_lock_flags(start, len, 0); -- 2.25.1