vfs: fix too big f_pos handling
Subsystems (4)
PATCH 1/8 vfs: fix too big f_pos handling
[CC fsdevel for opinions]
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]>
Now, rw_verify_area() checsk f_pos is negative or not. And if negative, returns -EINVAL.
But, some special files as /dev/(k)mem and /proc/<pid>/mem etc.. has negative offsets. And we can't do any access via read/write to the file(device).
This patch introduce a flag S_VERYBIG and allow negative file offsets.
Changelog: v4->v5
- clean up patches dor /dev/mem.
- rebased onto 2.6.32-rc1
Changelog: v3->v4
- make changes in mem.c aligned.
- change __negative_fpos_check() to return int.
- fixed bug in "pos" check.
- added comments.
Changelog: v2->v3
- fixed bug in rw_verify_area (it cannot be compiled)
--- drivers/char/mem.c | 4 ++++ fs/proc/base.c | 2 ++ fs/read_write.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- include/linux/fs.h | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
fs/read_write.c +20 -2
@@ -205,6 +205,21 @@ bad: }#endif +static int +__negative_fpos_check (struct inode *inode,loff_t pos,size_t count) +{ +/* +* pos or pos+count is negative here, check overflow. +* too big "count" will be caught in rw_verify_area(). +*/ +if ((pos <0 ) && (pos + count < pos)) +return -EOVERFLOW ; +/* If !VERYBIG inode, negative pos(pos+count) is not allowed */ +if (!IS_VERYBIG (inode)) +return -EINVAL ; +return 0 ; +} +/* * rw_verify_area doesn't like huge counts. We limit * them to something that fits in "int" so that others
@@ -222,8 +237,11 @@ int rw_verify_area(int read_write, strucif (unlikely ((ssize_t ) count <0 ))return retval; pos = *ppos; -if (unlikely ((pos <0 ) || (loff_t) (pos + count) <0 )) -return retval; +if (unlikely ((pos <0 ) || (loff_t) (pos + count) <0 )) { + retval =__negative_fpos_check (inode, pos, count); +if (retval) +return retval; + }if (unlikely (inode->i_flock &&mandatory_lock (inode))) { retval = locks_mandatory_area(
include/linux/fs.h +2 -0
@@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ struct inodes_stat_t {#define S_NOCMTIME 128/* Do not update file c/mtime */ #define S_SWAPFILE 256/* Do not truncate: swapon got its bmaps */ #define S_PRIVATE 512/* Inode is fs-internal */ +#define S_VERYBIG 1024/* Inode is huge: treat loff_t as unsigned */ /* * Note that nosuid etc flags are inode-specific: setting some file-system
@@ -269,6 +270,7 @@ struct inodes_stat_t {#define IS_NOCMTIME (inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_NOCMTIME)#define IS_SWAPFILE (inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_SWAPFILE)#define IS_PRIVATE (inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_PRIVATE) +#define IS_VERYBIG (inode) ((inode)->i_flags & S_VERYBIG)/* the read-only stuff doesn't really belong here, but any other place is probably as bad and I don't want to create yet another include file. */
drivers/char/mem.c +4 -0
@@ -861,6 +861,10 @@ static int memory_open(struct inode *inoif (dev->dev_info) filp->f_mapping->backing_dev_info = dev->dev_info; +/* Is /dev/mem or /dev/kmem ? */ +if (dev->dev_info == &directly_mappable_cdev_bdi) + inode->i_flags |=S_VERYBIG ; +if (dev->fops->open)return dev->fops->open (inode, filp);
fs/proc/base.c +2 -0
@@ -861,6 +861,8 @@ static const struct file_operations procstatic int mem_open (struct inode * inode,struct file * file) { file->private_data = (void *)((long )current->self_exec_id); +/* this file is read only and we can catch out-of-range */ + inode->i_flags |=S_VERYBIG ;return 0 ; }
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Al Viro
maintainerQuoted 11 lines · Fengguang
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]>
Now,
rw_verify_area()checskf_posis negative or not. And if negative, returns-EINVAL.But, some special files as /dev/(k)mem and /proc/<pid>/mem etc.. has negative offsets. And we can't do any access via read/write to the file(device).
This patch introduce a flag
S_VERYBIGand allow negative file offsets.
Ehh... FMODE_NEG_OFFSET in file->f_mode, perhaps?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 6 lines · On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:13:08 +0000 Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 5 lines · Fengguang
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]>
Now,
rw_verify_area()checskf_posis negative or not. And if negative, returns-EINVAL.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
But, some special files as /dev/(k)mem and /proc/<pid>/mem etc.. has negative offsets. And we can't do any access via read/write to the file(device).
This patch introduce a flag
S_VERYBIGand allow negative file offsets.Ehh...
FMODE_NEG_OFFSETinfile->f_mode, perhaps?
Any method is okay for me.
I was just not sure where I could modify without problem. If modifing f_mode is allowed, I'll write new version.
Thank you for advice.
I'm sorry that I don't have enough time this week. So, I'll try next week. I think dropping this patch itself has no big influence to this patch set. (but debug will be harder ;)
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 22 lines · KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Quoted 6 lines · On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:13:08 +0000 Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 5 lines · Fengguang
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]>
Now,
rw_verify_area()checskf_posis negative or not. And if negative, returns-EINVAL.Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
But, some special files as /dev/(k)mem and /proc/<pid>/mem etc.. has negative offsets. And we can't do any access via read/write to the file(device).
This patch introduce a flag
S_VERYBIGand allow negative file offsets.Ehh...
FMODE_NEG_OFFSETinfile->f_mode, perhaps?Any method is okay for me.
I was just not sure where I could modify without problem. If modifingf_modeis allowed, I'll write new version.
Quoted 5 lines
Thank you for advice.
I'm sorry that I don't have enough time this week. So, I'll try next week. I think dropping this patch itself has no big influence to this patch set. (but debug will be harder ;)
I just added FMODE_RANDOM, so hands down to add another ;)
Here is the updated patch, I'd like to submit it in another series together with the FMODE_RANDOM patch.
Tested OK on /dev/kmem.
Thanks,
Fengguang
---
Subject: vfs: allow negative f_pos with FMODE_NEG_OFFSET
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]>
Now, rw_verify_area() checsk f_pos is negative or not. And if negative, returns -EINVAL.
But, some special files as /dev/(k)mem and /proc/<pid>/mem etc.. has negative offsets. And we can't do any access via read/write to the file(device).
So introduce FMODE_NEG_OFFSET to allow negative file offsets.
Changelog: v5->v6
- use FMODE_NEG_OFFSET (suggested by Al)
- rebased onto 2.6.33-rc1
Changelog: v4->v5
- clean up patches dor /dev/mem.
- rebased onto 2.6.32-rc1
Changelog: v3->v4
- make changes in mem.c aligned.
- change __negative_fpos_check() to return int.
- fixed bug in "pos" check.
- added comments.
Changelog: v2->v3
- fixed bug in rw_verify_area (it cannot be compiled)
--- drivers/char/mem.c | 4 ++++ fs/proc/base.c | 2 ++ fs/read_write.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++-- include/linux/fs.h | 3 +++ 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
fs/read_write.c +19 -2
@@ -205,6 +205,20 @@ bad: }#endif +static int +__negative_fpos_check (struct file *file,loff_t pos,size_t count) +{ +/* +* pos or pos+count is negative here, check overflow. +* too big "count" will be caught in rw_verify_area(). +*/ +if ((pos <0 ) && (pos + count < pos)) +return -EOVERFLOW ; +if (file->f_mode &FMODE_NEG_OFFSET ) +return 0 ; +return -EINVAL ; +} +/* * rw_verify_area doesn't like huge counts. We limit * them to something that fits in "int" so that others
@@ -222,8 +236,11 @@ int rw_verify_area(int read_write, strucif (unlikely ((ssize_t ) count <0 ))return retval; pos = *ppos; -if (unlikely ((pos <0 ) || (loff_t) (pos + count) <0 )) -return retval; +if (unlikely ((pos <0 ) || (loff_t) (pos + count) <0 )) { + retval =__negative_fpos_check (file, pos, count); +if (retval) +return retval; + }if (unlikely (inode->i_flock &&mandatory_lock (inode))) { retval = locks_mandatory_area(
include/linux/fs.h +3 -0
@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ struct inodes_stat_t {/* Expect random access pattern */ #define FMODE_RANDOM ((__force fmode_t)0x1000) +/* File is huge (eg. /dev/kmem): treat loff_t as unsigned */ +#define FMODE_NEG_OFFSET ((__force fmode_t)0x2000) +/* * The below are the various read and write types that we support. Some of * them include behavioral modifiers that send information down to the
drivers/char/mem.c +4 -0
@@ -861,6 +861,10 @@ static int memory_open(struct inode *inoif (dev->dev_info) filp->f_mapping->backing_dev_info = dev->dev_info; +/* Is /dev/mem or /dev/kmem ? */ +if (dev->dev_info == &directly_mappable_cdev_bdi) + filp->f_mode |=FMODE_NEG_OFFSET ; +if (dev->fops->open)return dev->fops->open (inode, filp);
fs/proc/base.c +2 -0
@@ -861,6 +861,8 @@ static const struct file_operations procstatic int mem_open (struct inode * inode,struct file * file) { file->private_data = (void *)((long )current->self_exec_id); +/* OK to pass negative loff_t, we can catch out-of-range */ + file->f_mode |=FMODE_NEG_OFFSET ;return 0 ; }
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>