Re: [PATCH] binfmt_elf: fix return value in case of interpreter loadfailure

[Matthieu CASTET]

Hi Andrew,

thanks for your quick review.

Andrew Morton a écrit :
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:53:09 +0200 Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> The current code return the address instead of using PTR_ERR.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean here - please describe this error in
> much more detail.  Help people to identify the section of code which
> is being discussed.

I was speaking of


 elf_entry = load_elf_interp(&loc->interp_elf_ex,
                        interpreter,
                        &interp_map_addr,
                        load_bias);
[...]
        if (BAD_ADDR(elf_entry)) {
            force_sig(SIGSEGV, current);
            retval = IS_ERR((void *)elf_entry) ?
                    (int)elf_entry : -EINVAL;
            goto out_free_dentry;
        }

and was expecting we should use PTR_ERR when IS_ERR is true to match what is
done in [1].

But didn't saw that PTR_ERR((void *)elf_entry) and (int)elf_entry are equivalent.

> 
>> Also the check is done after adding e_entry. This can cause weird behaviour
>> because -errno + loc->interp_elf_ex.e_entry can produce a valid address.
> 
> Which check?

I am really confused here. Reading again the code this can't happen because if
load_elf_interp return -errno


We don't enter this condition
>         if (!IS_ERR((void *)elf_entry)) {
>             /*
>              * load_elf_interp() returns relocation
>              * adjustment
>              */
>             interp_load_addr = elf_entry;
>             elf_entry += loc->interp_elf_ex.e_entry;
>         }
we still have -errno here
>         if (BAD_ADDR(elf_entry)) {
>             force_sig(SIGSEGV, current);
>             retval = IS_ERR((void *)elf_entry) ?
>                     (int)elf_entry : -EINVAL;
>             goto out_free_dentry;
>         }


Sorry for my mistake.

The only valid remaining part of my patch is to return SIGKILL when
load_elf_interp fail (IS_ERR((void *)elf_entry) is true) (for example load
address of linker is bad) instead of SIGSEGV. This will follow what is done when
loading binary.

But is it even worth doing?


> 
>> Add a check to test load error before adding entry address. Also in this
>> case send SIGKILL instead of SIGSEGV to match what is done when loading binary.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
>> +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
>> @@ -900,18 +900,21 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>>  					    interpreter,
>>  					    &interp_map_addr,
>>  					    load_bias);
>> -		if (!IS_ERR((void *)elf_entry)) {
>> -			/*
>> -			 * load_elf_interp() returns relocation
>> -			 * adjustment
>> -			 */
>> -			interp_load_addr = elf_entry;
>> -			elf_entry += loc->interp_elf_ex.e_entry;
>> +		if (BAD_ADDR(elf_entry)) {
>> +			force_sig(SIGKILL, current);
>> +			retval = IS_ERR((void *)elf_entry) ?
>> +					PTR_ERR((void *)elf_entry) : -EINVAL;
> 
> Thats's a bit verbose - "PTR_ERR((void *)elf_entry)" is equivalent to
> "elf_entry".  I suppose we can do it this way to document the intent or
> something.
Ok, I see.
Note that [1] use PTR_ERR but elf_map already return unsigned long like
load_elf_interp.



Matthieu



[1]
        error = elf_map(bprm->file, load_bias + vaddr, elf_ppnt,
                elf_prot, elf_flags, 0);
        if (BAD_ADDR(error)) {
            send_sig(SIGKILL, current, 0);
            retval = IS_ERR((void *)error) ?
                PTR_ERR((void*)error) : -EINVAL;
            goto out_free_dentry;
        }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/