Commit e7b1f698 authored by Linus Torvalds's avatar Linus Torvalds Committed by Yongqiang Liu
Browse files

sched_getaffinity: don't assume 'cpumask_size()' is fully initialized

stable inclusion
from stable-v4.19.280
commit 178ff87d2a0c2d3d74081e1c2efbb33b3487267d
category: bugfix
bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I715PM


CVE: NA

--------------------------------

[ Upstream commit 6015b1ac ]

The getaffinity() system call uses 'cpumask_size()' to decide how big
the CPU mask is - so far so good.  It is indeed the allocation size of a
cpumask.

But the code also assumes that the whole allocation is initialized
without actually doing so itself.  That's wrong, because we might have
fixed-size allocations (making copying and clearing more efficient), but
not all of it is then necessarily used if 'nr_cpu_ids' is smaller.

Having checked other users of 'cpumask_size()', they all seem to be ok,
either using it purely for the allocation size, or explicitly zeroing
the cpumask before using the size in bytes to copy it.

See for example the ublk_ctrl_get_queue_affinity() function that uses
the proper 'zalloc_cpumask_var()' to make sure that the whole mask is
cleared, whether the storage is on the stack or if it was an external
allocation.

Fix this by just zeroing the allocation before using it.  Do the same
for the compat version of sched_getaffinity(), which had the same logic.

Also, for consistency, make sched_getaffinity() use 'cpumask_bits()' to
access the bits.  For a cpumask_var_t, it ends up being a pointer to the
same data either way, but it's just a good idea to treat it like you
would a 'cpumask_t'.  The compat case already did that.

Reported-by: default avatarRyan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7d026744-6bd6-6827-0471-b5e8eae0be3f@arm.com/


Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarYongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@huawei.com>
parent ad628dad
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Please to comment