Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-178177-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:29:55 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: fix unintentional arithmetic wraparound in offset
 calculation
Message-ID: <202405131629.9C315328C1@keescook>
References: <20240509-b4-sio-read_write-v2-1-018fc1e63392@google.com>
 <202405131251.6FD48B6A8@keescook>
 <q2qn5kgnfvfcnyfm7slx7tkmib5qftcgj2uufqd4o5vyctj6br@coauvkdhpjii>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <q2qn5kgnfvfcnyfm7slx7tkmib5qftcgj2uufqd4o5vyctj6br@coauvkdhpjii>

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:06:59PM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:01:57PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:42:07PM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > >  fs/read_write.c  | 18 +++++++++++-------
> > >  fs/remap_range.c | 12 ++++++------
> > >  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
> > > index d4c036e82b6c..d116e6e3eb3d 100644
> > > --- a/fs/read_write.c
> > > +++ b/fs/read_write.c
> > > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ generic_file_llseek_size(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence,
> > >  {
> > >  	switch (whence) {
> > >  	case SEEK_END:
> > > -		offset += eof;
> > > +		offset = min(offset, maxsize - eof) + eof;
> > 
> > This seems effectively unchanged compared to v1?
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAFhGd8qbUYXmgiFuLGQ7dWXFUtZacvT82wD4jSS-xNTvtzXKGQ@mail.gmail.com/
> > 
> 
> Right, please note the timestamps of Jan's review of v1 and when I sent
> v2. Essentially, I sent v2 before Jan's review of v1 and as such v2 does
> not fix the problem pointed out by Jan (the behavior of seek is
> technically different for VERY LARGE offsets).

Oh! Heh. I was tricked by versioning! ;)

-- 
Kees Cook