From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752936AbcFNUTJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:19:09 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:53427 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751833AbcFNUTH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:19:07 -0400
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:19:06 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Daniel Cashman <dcashman@google.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel/sysctl.c: avoid overflow
Message-Id: <20160614131906.4a5a9db55946735fbd57c4f5@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1465608788-4813-1-git-send-email-xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
References: <1465608788-4813-1-git-send-email-xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 03:33:08 +0200 Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote:

> An undetected overflow may occur in do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> @@ -2313,7 +2313,17 @@ static int do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv(bool *negp, unsigned long *lvalp,
>  {
>  	struct do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param *param = data;
>  	if (write) {
> -		int val = *negp ? -*lvalp : *lvalp;
> +		int val;
> +
> +		if (*negp) {
> +			if (*lvalp > (unsigned long) INT_MAX + 1)
> +				return -EINVAL;
> +			val = -*lvalp;
> +		} else {
> +			if (*lvalp > (unsigned long) INT_MAX)
> +				return -EINVAL;
> +			val = *lvalp;
> +		}
>  		if ((param->min && *param->min > val) ||
>  		    (param->max && *param->max < val))
>  			return -EINVAL;

hm.

What happens if someone does

	echo -1 > /proc/foo

expecting to get 0xffffffff?  That's a reasonable shorthand, and if we
change that to spit out EINVAL then people's stuff may break.