Message ID | 20231025084621.2338604-1-zhongjinghua@huaweicloud.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | block: Fix minor range check in device_add_disk() | expand |
On 2023/10/25 17:46, Zhong Jinghua wrote: > Checks added in patch: > commit e338924bd05d ("block: check minor range in device_add_disk()") > ignore the problem of first_minore < 0 and disk->minors < 0. What is the problem of first_minor < 0 or disk->minors < 0 ? Are negative values legal/illegal ?
在 2023/10/25 18:06, Tetsuo Handa 写道: > On 2023/10/25 17:46, Zhong Jinghua wrote: >> Checks added in patch: >> commit e338924bd05d ("block: check minor range in device_add_disk()") >> ignore the problem of first_minore < 0 and disk->minors < 0. > What is the problem of first_minor < 0 or disk->minors < 0 ? > Are negative values legal/illegal ? These two values are used as the secondary device number and the maximum number of partitions, which is illegal if negative. Then first_minore and disk->minors are signed numbers, and the sum may be less than MINORMASK to bypass the check.
Hi, 在 2023/10/26 16:52, zhongjinghua 写道: > > 在 2023/10/25 18:06, Tetsuo Handa 写道: >> On 2023/10/25 17:46, Zhong Jinghua wrote: >>> Checks added in patch: >>> commit e338924bd05d ("block: check minor range in device_add_disk()") >>> ignore the problem of first_minore < 0 and disk->minors < 0. >> What is the problem of first_minor < 0 or disk->minors < 0 ? >> Are negative values legal/illegal ? > > These two values are used as the secondary device number and the maximum > number of partitions, which is illegal if negative. Then first_minore > and disk->minors are signed numbers, and the sum may be less than > MINORMASK to bypass the check. Let me complement it, first_minor and minors can be set by driver, and driver allow set them throuhh ioctl/sysfs from user parameters, for example: If user pass in -1, and each disk support 8 partitions, driver will usually set: disk->first_minor = -1 * 8 = -8; disk->minors = 8; Then first_minor + minors = 0, then the following condition can't detect this case: if (disk->first_minor + disk->minors > MINORMASK + 1) By the way, we never limit how first_minor and minors is set by driver, and it's illegal if driver set first_minor = -4, and minors = 8. Thanks, Kuai > > . >
在 2023/10/30 17:26, Yu Kuai 写道: > Hi, > > 在 2023/10/26 16:52, zhongjinghua 写道: >> >> 在 2023/10/25 18:06, Tetsuo Handa 写道: >>> On 2023/10/25 17:46, Zhong Jinghua wrote: >>>> Checks added in patch: >>>> commit e338924bd05d ("block: check minor range in device_add_disk()") >>>> ignore the problem of first_minore < 0 and disk->minors < 0. >>> What is the problem of first_minor < 0 or disk->minors < 0 ? >>> Are negative values legal/illegal ? >> >> These two values are used as the secondary device number and the >> maximum number of partitions, which is illegal if negative. Then >> first_minore and disk->minors are signed numbers, and the sum may be >> less than MINORMASK to bypass the check. > > Let me complement it, first_minor and minors can be set by driver, and > driver allow set them throuhh ioctl/sysfs from user parameters, for > example: > > If user pass in -1, and each disk support 8 partitions, driver will > usually set: > > disk->first_minor = -1 * 8 = -8; > disk->minors = 8; > > Then first_minor + minors = 0, then the following condition can't detect > this case: > > if (disk->first_minor + disk->minors > MINORMASK + 1) > > By the way, we never limit how first_minor and minors is set by driver, > and it's illegal if driver set first_minor = -4, and minors = 8. > > Thanks, > Kuai > >> >> . >> > Kuai, Thank for your explanation. Jinghua
diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c index 736215e9ddc3..8292a1e265cf 100644 --- a/block/genhd.c +++ b/block/genhd.c @@ -432,7 +432,9 @@ int __must_check device_add_disk(struct device *parent, struct gendisk *disk, DISK_MAX_PARTS); disk->minors = DISK_MAX_PARTS; } - if (disk->first_minor + disk->minors > MINORMASK + 1) + if (disk->first_minor > MINORMASK || + disk->minors > (1U << MINORBITS) || + disk->first_minor + disk->minors > MINORMASK + 1) goto out_exit_elevator; } else { if (WARN_ON(disk->minors))