* [AMD64] Possible bug in fs/read_write.c::rw_verify_area
@ 2005-11-09 10:37 Bruno Ducrot
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Bruno Ducrot @ 2005-11-09 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Bruno Ducrot
Hi all,
fs/read_write.c::rw_verify_area check if the count for a read/write is
valid. Unfortunately, this check assume that a size_t is an int, which
is wrong at least on AMD64 architecture.
This fix is not correct also in general: it is wrong to assume
that size_t is a long int. A correct fix would be to introduce
a new constant (say SSIZE_MAX) for each supported architecture
and to use that contstant instead. I'm not an expert on this and
it is why I don't do it (sorry). But at least the following patch
is ok for more achitecture, I believe.
Signed-off-by: Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@poupinou.org>
--- linux-2.6.14/fs/read_write.c 2005/11/09 10:19:04 1.1
+++ linux-2.6.14/fs/read_write.c 2005/11/09 10:19:40
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int rw_verify_area(int read_write, struc
struct inode *inode;
loff_t pos;
- if (unlikely(count > INT_MAX))
+ if (unlikely(count > LONG_MAX))
goto Einval;
pos = *ppos;
if (unlikely((pos < 0) || (loff_t) (pos + count) < 0))
--
Bruno Ducrot
-- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy?
-- Don't know. Don't care.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2005-11-09 10:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-11-09 10:37 [AMD64] Possible bug in fs/read_write.c::rw_verify_area Bruno Ducrot
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®