From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Cc: "Toralf Förster" <toralf.foerster@gmx.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bug list: range checking issues 2.6.34-rc1
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:22:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adar5nj9aae.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100315101146.GL18181@bicker> (Dan Carpenter's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:45:23 +0300")
> > drivers/infiniband/core/user_mad.c +646 ib_umad_reg_agent() 'umm' 4 <= 6
> 641 u32 *umm = (u32 *) ureq.method_mask;
> 642 int i;
> 643
> 644 for (i = 0; i < BITS_TO_LONGS(IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS); ++i)
> 645 req.method_mask[i] > 646 umm[i * 2] | ((u64) umm[i * 2 + 1] << 32);
> "umm" points to a array with 4 elements.
> i can be 0 to 3, so "i * 2" goes up to 6
> And 4 <= 6 so it's a problem.
> Smatch also complained about "i * 2 + 1" but I didn't include that.
It's a bit tricky, but I believe this is a false positive. The code in
question is compatibility handling for 32-bit userspace on a 64-bit
kernel. In that case the range of i will be 0 to 1 (IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS
is 128, so BITS_TO_LONGS on that is 2), and so we will only access
elements 0, 1, 2, and 3 of umm[], which is OK.
(Not sure how easily a static checker could find this; the code in
question is guarded by test of compat_method_mask, which can only be 1
if ib_umad_reg_agent() is called from ib_umad_compat_ioctl(), which will
only be built with CONFIG_COMPAT set, which can only happen on a 64-bit
architecture -- but it seems a bit hard for a checker to follow all that)
--
Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com>
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Cc: "Toralf Förster" <toralf.foerster@gmx.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bug list: range checking issues 2.6.34-rc1
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:22:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adar5nj9aae.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100315101146.GL18181@bicker> (Dan Carpenter's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:45:23 +0300")
> > drivers/infiniband/core/user_mad.c +646 ib_umad_reg_agent() 'umm' 4 <= 6
> 641 u32 *umm = (u32 *) ureq.method_mask;
> 642 int i;
> 643
> 644 for (i = 0; i < BITS_TO_LONGS(IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS); ++i)
> 645 req.method_mask[i] =
> 646 umm[i * 2] | ((u64) umm[i * 2 + 1] << 32);
> "umm" points to a array with 4 elements.
> i can be 0 to 3, so "i * 2" goes up to 6
> And 4 <= 6 so it's a problem.
> Smatch also complained about "i * 2 + 1" but I didn't include that.
It's a bit tricky, but I believe this is a false positive. The code in
question is compatibility handling for 32-bit userspace on a 64-bit
kernel. In that case the range of i will be 0 to 1 (IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS
is 128, so BITS_TO_LONGS on that is 2), and so we will only access
elements 0, 1, 2, and 3 of umm[], which is OK.
(Not sure how easily a static checker could find this; the code in
question is guarded by test of compat_method_mask, which can only be 1
if ib_umad_reg_agent() is called from ib_umad_compat_ioctl(), which will
only be built with CONFIG_COMPAT set, which can only happen on a 64-bit
architecture -- but it seems a bit hard for a checker to follow all that)
--
Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com>
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-16 22:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <201003151002.18928.toralf.foerster@gmx.de>
2010-03-15 10:45 ` bug list: range checking issues 2.6.34-rc1 Dan Carpenter
2010-03-15 10:45 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-03-15 12:28 ` Toralf Förster
2010-03-15 12:28 ` Toralf Förster
2010-03-16 22:22 ` Roland Dreier [this message]
2010-03-16 22:22 ` Roland Dreier
2010-03-18 8:55 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-03-18 8:55 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-03-15 8:30 Dan Carpenter
2010-03-15 8:30 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-03-16 16:59 ` Tilman Schmidt
2010-03-16 16:59 ` Tilman Schmidt
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=adar5nj9aae.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com \
--to=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=error27@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=toralf.foerster@gmx.de \
/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.