lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] prctl: more prctl(PR_SET_MM_*) checks
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:12:14AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:02:29AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:47:57AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > Individual prctl(PR_SET_MM_*) calls do some checking to maintain
> > > consistent view of mm->arg_start et al fields, but not enough.
> > > In particular PR_SET_MM_ARG_START/PR_SET_MM_ARG_END/PR_SET_MM_ENV_START/PR_SET_MM_ENV_END
> > > only check that address lies in existent VMA, but doesn't check that
> > > start address is lower that end address _at all_.
> > >
> > > Consolidate all consistency checks, so there will be no difference in
> > > the future between PR_SET_MM_MAP and individual PR_SET_MM_* calls.
> > >
> > > The program below makes both ARGV and ENVP areas reverted,
> > > makes /proc/$PID/cmdline show garbage (doesn't oops by luck).
> >
> > Why should it oops?
>
> Anything can happen if you constantly write code like this
>
> unsigned long len = mm->arg_end - mm->arg_start;
>
> and expect result to be positive.

It won't 'cause proc code will limit it (this where 'luck'
comes from :). Anyway, switching to validate() helper will
make code more robust, so thank you!


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-28 00:41    [W:0.051 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site