From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Ernie Petrides <petrides@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] binfmt_elf.c : the BAD_ADDR macro again
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:15:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060820091515.GC602@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060820020417.GA17450@openwall.com>
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:04:17AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> Willy and all,
>
> Attached are 7 small changes from 2.4.33-ow1, as separate patches. I do
> not feel that these warrant separate messages.
OK, I will reply to them one at a time, though, otherwise it will take me
hours to write one single mail !
> linux-2.4.33-ow1-BAD_ADDR.diff
>
> This one is a one-liner, in binfmt_elf.c:
>
> -#define BAD_ADDR(x) ((unsigned long)(x) > TASK_SIZE)
> +#define BAD_ADDR(x) ((unsigned long)(x) >= TASK_SIZE)
>
> I feel that it is more logical to have BAD_ADDR() defined in this way:
> indeed, the first kernel-space address is unusable for userspace. I
> don't think this change affects anything, and we had it in -ow for a
> couple of years.
I remember being surprized by this macro when I discovered it about one month
ago. But I was working on something else and let it go. I should have checked
more carefully, because binfmt_aout already defines it as >=, and 2.6 has it
fixed too (recenty though). However, it's not enough to fix the macro, there
are two tests which need to be fixed too, as explained there :
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/21/507
The proper fix would then be :
diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
index b0ad905..249b710 100644
--- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
+++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static struct linux_binfmt elf_format =
NULL, THIS_MODULE, load_elf_binary, load_elf_library, elf_core_dump, ELF_EXEC_PAGESIZE
};
-#define BAD_ADDR(x) ((unsigned long)(x) > TASK_SIZE)
+#define BAD_ADDR(x) ((unsigned long)(x) >= TASK_SIZE)
static int set_brk(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ static unsigned long load_elf_interp(str
* <= p_memsize so it is only necessary to check p_memsz.
*/
k = load_addr + eppnt->p_vaddr;
- if (k > TASK_SIZE || eppnt->p_filesz > eppnt->p_memsz ||
+ if (BAD_ADDR(k) || eppnt->p_filesz > eppnt->p_memsz ||
eppnt->p_memsz > TASK_SIZE || TASK_SIZE - eppnt->p_memsz < k) {
error = -ENOMEM;
goto out_close;
@@ -772,7 +772,7 @@ #endif
* allowed task size. Note that p_filesz must always be
* <= p_memsz so it is only necessary to check p_memsz.
*/
- if (k > TASK_SIZE || elf_ppnt->p_filesz > elf_ppnt->p_memsz ||
+ if (BAD_ADDR(k) || elf_ppnt->p_filesz > elf_ppnt->p_memsz ||
elf_ppnt->p_memsz > TASK_SIZE ||
TASK_SIZE - elf_ppnt->p_memsz < k) {
/* set_brk can never work. Avoid overflows. */
And even then, I'm not happy with this test :
TASK_SIZE - elf_ppnt->p_memsz < k
because it means that we only raise the error when
k + elf_ppnt->p_memsz > TASK_SIZE
I really think that we want to check this instead :
k + elf_ppnt->p_memsz >= TASK_SIZE
Otherwise we leave a window where this is undetected :
load_addr + eppnt->p_vaddr == TASK_SIZE - eppnt->p_memsz
This will later lead to last_bss getting readjusted to TASK_SIZE, which I
don't think is expected at all :
k = load_addr + eppnt->p_memsz + eppnt->p_vaddr;
if (k > last_bss)
last_bss = k;
Then I think we should change this at both places :
- TASK_SIZE - elf_ppnt->p_memsz < k) {
+ BAD_ADDR(k + elf_ppnt->p_memsz)) {
The same change would also be needed in 2.6 then. I can provide a patch
for both 2.4 and 2.6 if everyone agree.
I cc Chuck Ebbert, Ernie Petrides and Andrew who discussed the subject
in June.
Regards,
Willy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-20 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-20 2:04 [PATCH x7] misc fixes from 2.4.33-ow1 Solar Designer
2006-08-20 9:15 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2006-08-20 15:51 ` [PATCH] binfmt_elf.c : the BAD_ADDR macro again Solar Designer
2006-08-20 16:23 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-21 20:35 ` Ernie Petrides
2006-08-21 21:11 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-21 23:36 ` Ernie Petrides
2006-08-22 3:07 ` printk()s of user-supplied strings (Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf.c : the BAD_ADDR macro again) Solar Designer
2006-08-22 20:23 ` Ernie Petrides
2006-08-22 20:34 ` printk()s of user-supplied strings Willy Tarreau
2006-08-24 16:44 ` printk()s of user-supplied strings (Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf.c : the BAD_ADDR macro again) Solar Designer
2006-08-24 16:46 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-26 2:29 ` Solar Designer
2006-08-26 8:22 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-26 23:13 ` Solar Designer
2006-08-27 20:04 ` printk()s of user-supplied strings Willy Tarreau
2006-08-28 1:52 ` Solar Designer
1970-01-01 0:16 ` Pavel Machek
2006-08-28 8:02 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-28 11:17 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2006-08-30 6:15 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-08-28 17:35 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-08-22 4:36 ` [PATCH] binfmt_elf.c : the BAD_ADDR macro again Willy Tarreau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060820091515.GC602@1wt.eu \
--to=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=76306.1226@compuserve.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=petrides@redhat.com \
--cc=solar@openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome