All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@intel.com>
Cc: Nikhil Rao <nikhil.rao@intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] misc: mic/scif: fix wrap around tests
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:51:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151013125135.GN7289@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1444554884.93285.233.camel@localhost>

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:14:44AM -0700, Sudeep Dutt wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 09:40 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Signed integer overflow is undefined.  Also I added a check for
> > "(offset < 0)" in scif_unregister() because that makes it match the
> > other conditions and because I didn't want to subtract a negative.
> > 
> > Fixes: ba612aa8b487 ('misc: mic: SCIF memory registration and unregistration')
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Imagine you are on 64 bit and len is larger than INT_MAX << 12, it means
> > that we truncate it because scif_get_window_offset() takes an integer
> > argument.  I don't know if this is an issue. 
> 
> scif_get_window_offset(..) takes an integer argument for the number of
> pages. We believe that an int for number of 4K pages is sufficient for
> current systems. I don't think there is an issue here.

The issue isn't that we need more pages, it's that we can overflow
INT_MAX so scif_get_window_offset() succeeds when it should fail.

> 
> >  Maybe I should use
> > INT_MAX instead of LONG_MAX?  I am working on a static checker warning
> > for these types of issues:
> > drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rma.c:1631 scif_register() warn: truncating user data 'len >> 12' '0-4503599627370495'
> > drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rma.c:1643 scif_register() warn: truncating user data 'len >> 12' '0-4503599627370495'
> > 
> > The other static warnings here are:
> > 
> > drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rma.c:745 scif_unregister_window() warn: inconsistent returns 'mutex:&ep->rma_info.rma_lock'.
> >   Locked on:   line 745
> >   Unlocked on: line 687
> 
> The function expects the lock to be held by the caller so there is no
> issue here.
> 

You're missing the point.  Never mind, I will send a patch for this.

> > @@ -1613,7 +1613,7 @@ off_t scif_register(scif_epd_t epd, void *addr, size_t len, off_t offset,
> >  	if ((map_flags & SCIF_MAP_FIXED) &&
> >  	    ((ALIGN(offset, PAGE_SIZE) != offset) ||
> >  	    (offset < 0) ||
> > -	    (offset + (off_t)len < offset)))
> > +	    (len < LONG_MAX - offset)))
> 
> Why is this change required? The earlier code was being used to detect
> wraparound and I think it works fine.

It doesn't work.  off_t is a signed type so it's undefined.  The
compiler will often just remove the condition.

regards,
dan carpenter


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@intel.com>
Cc: Nikhil Rao <nikhil.rao@intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] misc: mic/scif: fix wrap around tests
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:51:35 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151013125135.GN7289@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1444554884.93285.233.camel@localhost>

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 02:14:44AM -0700, Sudeep Dutt wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 09:40 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Signed integer overflow is undefined.  Also I added a check for
> > "(offset < 0)" in scif_unregister() because that makes it match the
> > other conditions and because I didn't want to subtract a negative.
> > 
> > Fixes: ba612aa8b487 ('misc: mic: SCIF memory registration and unregistration')
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Imagine you are on 64 bit and len is larger than INT_MAX << 12, it means
> > that we truncate it because scif_get_window_offset() takes an integer
> > argument.  I don't know if this is an issue. 
> 
> scif_get_window_offset(..) takes an integer argument for the number of
> pages. We believe that an int for number of 4K pages is sufficient for
> current systems. I don't think there is an issue here.

The issue isn't that we need more pages, it's that we can overflow
INT_MAX so scif_get_window_offset() succeeds when it should fail.

> 
> >  Maybe I should use
> > INT_MAX instead of LONG_MAX?  I am working on a static checker warning
> > for these types of issues:
> > drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rma.c:1631 scif_register() warn: truncating user data 'len >> 12' '0-4503599627370495'
> > drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rma.c:1643 scif_register() warn: truncating user data 'len >> 12' '0-4503599627370495'
> > 
> > The other static warnings here are:
> > 
> > drivers/misc/mic/scif/scif_rma.c:745 scif_unregister_window() warn: inconsistent returns 'mutex:&ep->rma_info.rma_lock'.
> >   Locked on:   line 745
> >   Unlocked on: line 687
> 
> The function expects the lock to be held by the caller so there is no
> issue here.
> 

You're missing the point.  Never mind, I will send a patch for this.

> > @@ -1613,7 +1613,7 @@ off_t scif_register(scif_epd_t epd, void *addr, size_t len, off_t offset,
> >  	if ((map_flags & SCIF_MAP_FIXED) &&
> >  	    ((ALIGN(offset, PAGE_SIZE) != offset) ||
> >  	    (offset < 0) ||
> > -	    (offset + (off_t)len < offset)))
> > +	    (len < LONG_MAX - offset)))
> 
> Why is this change required? The earlier code was being used to detect
> wraparound and I think it works fine.

It doesn't work.  off_t is a signed type so it's undefined.  The
compiler will often just remove the condition.

regards,
dan carpenter


  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-13 12:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-09  6:40 [patch 2/2] misc: mic/scif: fix wrap around tests Dan Carpenter
2015-10-09  6:40 ` Dan Carpenter
2015-10-11  9:14 ` Sudeep Dutt
2015-10-11  9:14   ` Sudeep Dutt
2015-10-13 12:51   ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2015-10-13 12:51     ` Dan Carpenter
2015-10-14  3:21 ` Sudeep Dutt
2015-10-14  3:21   ` Sudeep Dutt
2015-10-14 18:05   ` Dan Carpenter
2015-10-14 18:05     ` Dan Carpenter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151013125135.GN7289@mwanda \
    --to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nikhil.rao@intel.com \
    --cc=sudeep.dutt@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.