From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
<d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix proc_reg_get_unmapped_area()
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:23:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <525FAC8B02000078000FBAE8@nat28.tlf.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131016134044.d1bd8004f4fb94df405a541d@linux-foundation.org>
>>> On 16.10.13 at 22:40, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:32:40 +0100 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
>> Commit c4fe24485729fc2cbff324c111e67a1cc2f9adea ("sparc: fix PCI device
>> proc file mmap(2)"), while fixing one problem, introduced two new ones:
>> - the function truncates the return value from ->get_unmapped_area() on
>> 64-bit architectures,
>> - _all_ descendants are now required to set .get_unmapped_area to non-
>> NULL, which wasn't necessary before (and shouldn't be).
>>
>> Both - afaict - are a result from a too simplistic copy'n'paste from
>> proc_reg_mmap() done in that change.
>>
>> This likely also addresses reports like the one at
>>
> http://linux-kernel.2935.n7.nabble.com/mmap-for-proc-vmcore-broken-since-3-12-rc1-td729
> 326.html.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- 3.12-rc5/fs/proc/inode.c
>> +++ 3.12-rc5-proc-get-unmapped-area/fs/proc/inode.c
>> @@ -288,12 +288,12 @@ static int proc_reg_mmap(struct file *fi
>> static unsigned long proc_reg_get_unmapped_area(struct file *file, unsigned
> long orig_addr, unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long flags)
>> {
>> struct proc_dir_entry *pde = PDE(file_inode(file));
>> - int rv = -EIO;
>> - unsigned long (*get_unmapped_area)(struct file *, unsigned long, unsigned
> long, unsigned long, unsigned long);
>> + unsigned long rv = -EIO;
>> +
>> if (use_pde(pde)) {
>> - get_unmapped_area = pde->proc_fops->get_unmapped_area;
>> - if (get_unmapped_area)
>> - rv = get_unmapped_area(file, orig_addr, len, pgoff, flags);
>> + rv = (pde->proc_fops->get_unmapped_area
>> + ?: current->mm->get_unmapped_area)(file, orig_addr, len,
>> + pgoff, flags);
>> unuse_pde(pde);
>> }
>> return rv;
>
> I think these two patches will address the problems:
>
> http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/procfs-fix-unintended-truncation-of-retur
> ned-mapped-address.patch
> http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/procfs-call-default-get_unmapped_area-on-
> mmu-present-architectures.patch
>
> I'll be sending those Linuswards today. Please check them. (I think
> your version would break the nommu build).
Yes indeed - I did search for existing patches, but didn't find them.
I see Linus merged them already, so there's no point anymore
sending Reviewed-by tags.
I think though that in the !MMU case the second of them leaves an
issue unfixed nevertheless: If the specific procfs handler has no
.get_unmapped_area, the operation would still fail in that case
rather than succeed as it did before that wrapper got added.)
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-17 7:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-16 11:32 Jan Beulich
2013-10-16 20:40 ` Andrew Morton
2013-10-17 7:23 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2013-10-17 8:36 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-10-17 9:16 ` Jan Beulich
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=525FAC8B02000078000FBAE8@nat28.tlf.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®