From: walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch RFC] kvm, cpuid: silence a buffer overflow warning
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:18:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5306009D.8040205@bfs.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5305FE1E.6060902@redhat.com>
Am 20.02.2014 14:07, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 20/02/2014 13:34, Dan Carpenter ha scritto:
>> This seems like a harmless off by one overflow if "i" is the last
>> element in the vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[] array.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> Not tested. I always wonder if it's worth fixing these or if it's worth
>> reporting them? Either of those seem like a lot of work for something
>> harmless.
>
> Could it oops if cpuid_nent is INT_MAX? If so, it's not entirely harmless.
> In this case I'd rather take the occasion to cleanup the code like this
> (compile-tested):
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index 9fed5bedaad6..2fd6e7169936 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -656,18 +656,19 @@ out:
> static int move_to_next_stateful_cpuid_entry(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int i)
> {
> struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *e = &vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[i];
> - int j, nent = vcpu->arch.cpuid_nent;
> + struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *ej;
> + int j = i, nent = vcpu->arch.cpuid_nent;
>
> e->flags &= ~KVM_CPUID_FLAG_STATE_READ_NEXT;
> +
> /* when no next entry is found, the current entry[i] is reselected */
> - for (j = i + 1; ; j = (j + 1) % nent) {
> - struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *ej = &vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[j];
> - if (ej->function = e->function) {
> - ej->flags |= KVM_CPUID_FLAG_STATE_READ_NEXT;
> - return j;
> - }
> - }
> - return 0; /* silence gcc, even though control never reaches here */
> + do {
> + j = (j + 1) % nent;
> + ej = &vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[j];
> + } while (ej->function != e->function);
> +
> + ej->flags |= KVM_CPUID_FLAG_STATE_READ_NEXT;
> + return j;
> }
>
> /* find an entry with matching function, matching index (if needed), and that
>
> What do you think?
>
Is there any guaranty that this will not loop forever ?
an if (i=j) return 0; would be on the save side. (I guess that
these was the idea behind the for).
re,
wh
> Paolo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch RFC] kvm, cpuid: silence a buffer overflow warning
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:18:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5306009D.8040205@bfs.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5305FE1E.6060902@redhat.com>
Am 20.02.2014 14:07, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 20/02/2014 13:34, Dan Carpenter ha scritto:
>> This seems like a harmless off by one overflow if "i" is the last
>> element in the vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[] array.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> Not tested. I always wonder if it's worth fixing these or if it's worth
>> reporting them? Either of those seem like a lot of work for something
>> harmless.
>
> Could it oops if cpuid_nent is INT_MAX? If so, it's not entirely harmless.
> In this case I'd rather take the occasion to cleanup the code like this
> (compile-tested):
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index 9fed5bedaad6..2fd6e7169936 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -656,18 +656,19 @@ out:
> static int move_to_next_stateful_cpuid_entry(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int i)
> {
> struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *e = &vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[i];
> - int j, nent = vcpu->arch.cpuid_nent;
> + struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *ej;
> + int j = i, nent = vcpu->arch.cpuid_nent;
>
> e->flags &= ~KVM_CPUID_FLAG_STATE_READ_NEXT;
> +
> /* when no next entry is found, the current entry[i] is reselected */
> - for (j = i + 1; ; j = (j + 1) % nent) {
> - struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *ej = &vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[j];
> - if (ej->function == e->function) {
> - ej->flags |= KVM_CPUID_FLAG_STATE_READ_NEXT;
> - return j;
> - }
> - }
> - return 0; /* silence gcc, even though control never reaches here */
> + do {
> + j = (j + 1) % nent;
> + ej = &vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries[j];
> + } while (ej->function != e->function);
> +
> + ej->flags |= KVM_CPUID_FLAG_STATE_READ_NEXT;
> + return j;
> }
>
> /* find an entry with matching function, matching index (if needed), and that
>
> What do you think?
>
Is there any guaranty that this will not loop forever ?
an if (i==j) return 0; would be on the save side. (I guess that
these was the idea behind the for).
re,
wh
> Paolo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-20 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-20 12:34 [patch RFC] kvm, cpuid: silence a buffer overflow warning Dan Carpenter
2014-02-20 12:34 ` Dan Carpenter
2014-02-20 13:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-20 13:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-20 13:18 ` walter harms [this message]
2014-02-20 13:18 ` walter harms
2014-02-20 13:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-20 13:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-02-20 13:23 ` Dan Carpenter
2014-02-20 13:23 ` 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=5306009D.8040205@bfs.de \
--to=wharms@bfs.de \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=gleb@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.