|
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:07 AM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Christoph Hellwig
> > Sent: 27 July 2020 17:24
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 06:16:32PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > Maybe sockptr_advance should have some safety checks and sometimes
> > > return -EFAULT? Or you should always use the implementation where
> > > being a kernel address is an explicit bit of sockptr_t, rather than
> > > being implicit?
> >
> > I already have a patch to use access_ok to check the whole range in
> > init_user_sockptr.
>
> That doesn't make (much) difference to the code paths that ignore
> the user-supplied length.
> OTOH doing the user/kernel check on the base address (not an
> incremented one) means that the correct copy function is always
> selected.
Right, I had the same reaction in reading this, but actually, his code
gets rid of the sockptr_advance stuff entirely and never mutates, so
even though my point about attacking those pointers was missed, the
code does the better thing now -- checking the base address and never
mutating the pointer. So I think we're good.
>
> Perhaps the functions should all be passed a 'const sockptr_t'.
> The typedef could be made 'const' - requiring non-const items
> explicitly use the union/struct itself.
I was thinking the same, but just by making the pointers inside the
struct const. However, making the whole struct const via the typedef
is a much better idea. That'd probably require changing the signature
of init_user_sockptr a bit, which would be fine, but indeed I think
this would be a very positive change.
Jason
|
