Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] mm/mlock: return EINVAL if len overflows for mlock/munlock

[David Hildenbrand]

On 22.03.23 09:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 22.03.23 03:14, mawupeng wrote:
> > On 2023/3/21 22:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 21.03.23 08:44, mawupeng wrote:
> > > > On 2023/3/20 18:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > On 20.03.23 03:47, Wupeng Ma wrote:
> > > > > > From: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While testing mlock, we have a problem if the len of mlock is ULONG_MAX.
> > > > > > The return value of mlock is zero. But nothing will be locked since the
> > > > > > len in do_mlock overflows to zero due to the following code in mlock:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       len = PAGE_ALIGN(len + (offset_in_page(start)));
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same problem happens in munlock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Add new check and return -EINVAL to fix this overflowing scenarios since
> > > > > > they are absolutely wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thinking again, wouldn't we reject mlock(0, ULONG_MAX) now as well?
> > > >
> > > > mlock will return 0 if len is zero which is the same w/o this patchset.
> > > > Here is the calltrace if len is zero.
> > > >
> > > > mlock(len == 0)
> > > >       do_mlock(len == 0)
> > > >           if (!len)
> > > >               return 0
> > >
> > > I was asking about addr=0, len=ULONG_MAX.
> > >
> > > IIUC, that used to work but could now fail? I haven't played with it, though.
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing.
> >
> > Previous for add = 0 and len == ULONG_MAX, mlock will return ok(0) since len overflows to zero.
> > IFAICT, this is not right since mlock do noting(lock nothing) and return ok(0).
> >
> > With this patch, for the same situation, mlock can return EINVAL as expected.
>
> Quoting the man page:
>
> "EINVAL (mlock(),  mlock2(),  and  munlock()) The result of the addition
> addr+len was less than addr (e.g., the addition may have resulted in an
> overflow)."
>
> ULONG_MAX+0 = ULONG_MAX
>
> There is no overflow expected. The proper way to implement it would be
> to handle that case and not fail with EINVAL.
>
> At least that would be expected when reading the man page.

As a side note, I agree that failing with EINVAL is better than doing 
noting (mlocking nothing). But I am not sure what we are expected to do 
in that case ... the man page is a bit vague on that.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb