Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 04:47:33 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Linke Li <lilinke99@foxmail.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, muchun.song@linux.dev,
        nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, trix@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        dan.carpenter@linaro.org, Linke Li <lilinke99@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] hugetlbfs: Fix integer overflow check in
 hugetlbfs_file_mmap()
Message-ID: <ZL30Vaj8RYxmsF9o@casper.infradead.org>
References: <tencent_C2D6865561F23A8141BB145149ACC682B408@qq.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <tencent_C2D6865561F23A8141BB145149ACC682B408@qq.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 10:49:52PM +0800, Linke Li wrote:
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -154,10 +154,7 @@ static int hugetlbfs_file_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  	if (vma->vm_pgoff & (~huge_page_mask(h) >> PAGE_SHIFT))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	vma_len = (loff_t)(vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start);
> -	len = vma_len + ((loff_t)vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT);
> -	/* check for overflow */
> -	if (len < vma_len)
> +	if (check_add_overflow(vma_len, (loff_t)vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT, &len))
>  		return -EINVAL;

Doesn't this check duplicate that performed by file_mmap_ok()?  Can't we
just delete the check, or is there a code path that leads here while
avoiding file_mmap_ok()?