Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: refuse wrapped vm_brk requests

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/11, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > and thus this patch fixes the error code returned by do_brk() in case
> > of overflow, now it returns -ENOMEM rather than zero. Perhaps
> >
> >         if (!len)
> >                 return 0;
> >         len = PAGE_ALIGN(len);
> >         if (!len)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > would be more clear but this is subjective.
>
> I'm fine either way.

Me too, so feel free to ignore,

> > I am wondering if we should shift this overflow check to the caller(s).
> > Say, sys_brk() does find_vma_intersection(mm, oldbrk, newbrk+PAGE_SIZE)
> > before do_brk(), and in case of overflow find_vma_intersection() can
> > wrongly return NULL.
> >
> > Then do_brk() will be called with len = -oldbrk, this can overflow or
> > not but in any case this doesn't look right too.
> >
> > Or I am totally confused?
>
> I think the callers shouldn't request a negative value, sure, but
> vm_brk should notice and refuse it.

Not sure I understand...

I tried to say that, with or without this change, sys_brk() should check
for overflow too, otherwise it looks buggy.

Oleg.