Re: [PATCH] mm/gup_test: reject wrapped user ranges

From: David Hildenbrand (Arm)

Date: Wed Jun 10 2026 - 08:21:24 EST


On 6/10/26 03:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 00:48:15 +0000 Samuel Moelius <sam.moelius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> gup_test accepts an address and size from the debugfs ioctl and
>> repeatedly compares against addr + size. If that addition wraps, the
>> loop can be skipped and the ioctl returns success with size rewritten to
>> zero.
>>
>> Compute the end address once with overflow checking and use that checked
>> end for the loop bounds.
>>
>
> Looks sane, thanks.
>
>> --- a/mm/gup_test.c
>> +++ b/mm/gup_test.c
>> @@ -105,11 +105,15 @@ static int __gup_test_ioctl(unsigned int cmd,
>> unsigned long i, nr_pages, addr, next;
>> long nr;
>> struct page **pages;
>> + unsigned long end;
>> int ret = 0;
>> bool needs_mmap_lock =
>> cmd != GUP_FAST_BENCHMARK && cmd != PIN_FAST_BENCHMARK;
>>
>> - if (gup->size > ULONG_MAX)
>> + if (gup->addr > ULONG_MAX || gup->size > ULONG_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (check_add_overflow((unsigned long)gup->addr,
>> + (unsigned long)gup->size, &end))
>
> I wonder why those fields were made __u64 instead of ulong.
>
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> nr_pages = gup->size / PAGE_SIZE;
>> @@ -125,13 +129,13 @@ static int __gup_test_ioctl(unsigned int cmd,
>> i = 0;
>> nr = gup->nr_pages_per_call;
>> start_time = ktime_get();
>> - for (addr = gup->addr; addr < gup->addr + gup->size; addr = next) {
>> + for (addr = gup->addr; addr < end; addr = next) {
>> if (nr != gup->nr_pages_per_call)
>> break;
>>
>> next = addr + nr * PAGE_SIZE;
>
> Sashiko AI review identified a pre-existing possible overflow here on
> 32-bit machines.
>
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260609004814.1240586.6294d614ac80.gup-test-range-end-wrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I mean, we don't really care for gup_test.c about any of that. The patch here
looks like a decent cleanup, so I think we should take it.

Fixing odd things on 32bit that will never happen? Not so sure.

--
Cheers,

David