Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] binder: Validate the default binderfs device names.

[Hridya Valsaraju]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:14 AM Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 04:55:08PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:27:26PM -0700, Hridya Valsaraju wrote:
> > > Length of a binderfs device name cannot exceed BINDERFS_MAX_NAME.
> > > This patch adds a check in binderfs_init() to ensure the same
> > > for the default binder devices that will be created in every
> > > binderfs instance.
> > >
> > > Co-developed-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/android/binderfs.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/android/binderfs.c b/drivers/android/binderfs.c
> > > index aee46dd1be91..55c5adb87585 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/android/binderfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/android/binderfs.c
> > > @@ -570,6 +570,18 @@ static struct file_system_type binder_fs_type = {
> > >  int __init init_binderfs(void)
> > >  {
> > >     int ret;
> > > +   const char *name;
> > > +   size_t len;
> > > +
> > > +   /* Verify that the default binderfs device names are valid. */
> >
> > And by "valid" you only mean "not bigger than BINDERFS_MAX_NAME, right?
> >
> > > +   name = binder_devices_param;
> > > +   for (len = strcspn(name, ","); len > 0; len = strcspn(name, ",")) {
> > > +           if (len > BINDERFS_MAX_NAME)
> > > +                   return -E2BIG;
> > > +           name += len;
> > > +           if (*name == ',')
> > > +                   name++;
> > > +   }
> >
> > We already tokenize the binderfs device names in binder_init(), why not
> > check this there instead?  Parsing the same string over and over isn't
> > the nicest.
>
> non-binderfs binder devices do not have their limit set to
> BINDERFS_NAME_MAX. That's why the check has likely been made specific to
> binderfs binder devices which do have that limit.


Thank you Greg and Christian, for taking another look. Yes,
non-binderfs binder devices not having this limitation is the reason
why the check was made specific to binderfs devices. Also, when
CONFIG_ANDROID_BINDERFS is set, patch 1/2 disabled the same string
being parsed in binder_init().

>
> But, in practice, 255 is the standard path-part limit that no-one really
> exceeds especially not for stuff such as device nodes which usually have
> rather standard naming schemes (e.g. binder, vndbinder, hwbinder, etc.).
> So yes, we can move that check before both the binderfs binder device
> and non-binderfs binder device parsing code and treat it as a generic
> check.
> Then we can also backport that check as you requested in the other mail.
> Unless Hridya or Todd have objections, of course.

I do not have any objections to adding a generic check in binder_init() instead.

>
> Christian