Re: [patch 1/2] Validate itimer timeval from userspace

[tglx@linutronix.de]

Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

>> 1. sys_alarm()
>>
>> The alarm value 0xFFFFFFFF is valid as the argument to alarm() is an
>> unsigned int. So we have to convert this to 0x7FFFFFFF (for 32bit
>> machines) because timeval.tv_sec is a signed long. This is done by the
>> alarm patch, which is necessary whether we check the sanity of the
>> timeval in do_setitimer or not. The current -rc6 kernel sends the alarm
>> with the next timer tick, which will break an application which set it
>> to something > INT_MAX.
>>
>> Of course we could do this by the silent conversion of negative values
>> in setitimer too. But thats insane as we rely on some broken feature.
>
> So you're saying that sys_alarm(0xffffffff) needs to behave as
> sys_alarm(0x7ffffffff)?
>
> I guess if we have to do it that way, the risk of breaking anything is
> very small.
>
> What's the 2.4/2.6.13 behaviour of sys_alarm(0xffffffff)?

It gets converted to MAX_SEC_IN_JIFFIES, which depends on HZ, but is
definitely <= 0x7fffffff. For HZ = 1000 its 2147483 seconds (~24days), for
HZ = 250 its *4 .....

>> 2. setitimer()
>>
>> An application would have to set value.it_value.tv_sec to a negative
>> value to trigger this. Also uninitialized usage of struct timevals can
>> cause such behaviour.
>>
>> I'm not sure, if it is sane to ingore this.
>
> What does 2.4/2.6.13 do?   Let's do that.
>
> If you're proposing that we depart from previous behaviour by converting
> setitimer(0xffffffff) into setitimer(0x7fffffff) then I guess we could
> live with that.

Note that this is different to alarm().

alarm(unsigned int seconds);
vs.
setitimer(struct timeval *value, struct timeval *oldvalue);

So you have to willingly set value->it_value.tv_sec to a negative value or
let it randomly uninitialized.

>> I can change the itimer
>> validate patch for now to do
>>
>> if (unlikely(!timeval_valid(v))
>> 	fixup_timeval(v);
>>
>> and print an appropriate warning in fixup_timeval() for the time being.
>>
>
> No, we cannot warn - it'll enable unprivileged users to spam the logs.
>
> One could generate a once-per-reboot warning, I guess.  The message should
> include the PID and current->comm.

Yeah, I would have limited it to 10 warnings, but I can also do only one.

I make up a patch tomorrow morning.

       tglx



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/