Re: [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: check for pgoff value overflow

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:37:57 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Here are a couple options for computing the mask.  I changed the name
> you suggested to make it more obvious that the mask is being used to
> check for loff_t overflow.
> 
> If we want to explicitly comptue the mask as in code above.
> #define PGOFF_LOFFT_MAX \
> 	(((1UL << (PAGE_SHIFT + 1)) - 1) <<  (BITS_PER_LONG - (PAGE_SHIFT + 1)))
> 
> Or, we use PAGE_MASK
> #define PGOFF_LOFFT_MAX (PAGE_MASK << (BITS_PER_LONG - (2 * PAGE_SHIFT) - 1))

Sounds good.

> In either case, we need a big comment explaining the mask and
> how we have that extra bit +/- 1 because the offset will be converted
> to a signed value.

Yup.

> > Also, we later to
> > 
> > 	len = vma_len + ((loff_t)vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > 	/* check for overflow */
> > 	if (len < vma_len)
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > which is ungainly: even if we passed the PGOFF_T_MAX test, there can
> > still be an overflow which we still must check for.  Is that avoidable?
> > Probably not...
> 
> Yes, it is required.  That check takes into account the length argument
> which is added to page offset.  So, yes you can pass the first check and
> fail this one.

Well I was sort of wondering if both checks could be done in a single
operation, but I guess not.