On 01/28/2011 08:12 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
On 01/28/2011 04:01 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
On 01/28/2011 07:36 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
Code has changed reasonable since Maverick but same patch applies to
all older affected releases.
From 2a8309b4f615072025743fae22147be5aa8e86cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Linus Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:40:55 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] net: fix rds_iovec page count overflow
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/709153
CVE-2010-3865
As reported by Thomas Pollet, the rdma page counting can overflow. We
get the rdma sizes in 64-bit unsigned entities, but then limit it to
UINT_MAX bytes and shift them down to pages (so with a possible "+1" for
an unaligned address).
So each individual page count fits comfortably in an 'unsigned int' (not
even close to overflowing into signed), but as they are added up, they
might end up resulting in a signed return value. Which would be wrong.
Catch the case of tot_pages turning negative, and return the appropriate
error code.
Reported-by: Thomas Pollet<thomas.pollet@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Andy Grover<andy.grover@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller<davem@davemloft.net>
(backported from commit 1b1f693d7ad6d193862dcb1118540a030c5e761f upstream)
Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader<stefan.bader@canonical.com>
---
net/rds/rdma.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/rds/rdma.c b/net/rds/rdma.c
index 3998967..0a403a7 100644
--- a/net/rds/rdma.c
+++ b/net/rds/rdma.c
@@ -500,6 +500,16 @@ static struct rds_rdma_op *rds_rdma_prepare(struct
rds_sock *rs,
max_pages = max(nr, max_pages);
nr_pages += nr;
+
+ /*
+ * nr for one entry in limited to (UINT_MAX>>PAGE_SHIFT)+1
+ * so nr_pages cannot overflow without first going negative.
+ * If nr cannot overflow then max_pages should be ok.
+ */
+ if (nr_pages< 0) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
}
pages = kcalloc(max_pages, sizeof(struct page *), GFP_KERNEL);
I'm kind of uncomfortable comparing an 'unsigned int' against 0. IIRC the
results are somewhat compiler dependent. Wouldn't it be clearer if it was 'if
(nr_pages>= INT_MAX)' ?
rtg
Likely better. Just made it>INT_MAX (though that should not make that much
difference).
This change behaves as expected. See attached sample program.
Acked-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Karmic, Lucid, Maverick: SRU: CVE-2010-3865
