[PATCH] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[PATCH] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Dan Carpenter]

There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.

The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
check for now and look a couple lines after:

	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
"nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and multiply
by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.  The "args->buffer_count"
is also an unsigned int so it could overflow if it's set to UINT_MAX
when we do:

	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fixes: 2889caa92321 ("drm/i915: Eliminate lots of iterations over the execobjects array")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
index 15ab3e6792f9..f569721aad1a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -2152,7 +2152,7 @@ get_fence_array(struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args,
 	if (!(args->flags & I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY))
 		return NULL;
 
-	if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))
+	if (nfences > UINT_MAX / sizeof(*fences))
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
 	user = u64_to_user_ptr(args->cliprects_ptr);
@@ -2520,7 +2520,7 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	unsigned int i;
 	int err;
 
-	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
+	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > UINT_MAX / sz - 1) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
@@ -2609,7 +2609,7 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	struct drm_syncobj **fences = NULL;
 	int err;
 
-	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
+	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > UINT_MAX / sz - 1) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/28898/
State : success

== Summary ==

Series 28898v1 drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/28898/revisions/1/mbox/

Test gem_ringfill:
        Subgroup basic-default-hang:
                dmesg-warn -> INCOMPLETE (fi-pnv-d510) fdo#101600
Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
        Subgroup suspend-read-crc-pipe-b:
                pass       -> DMESG-WARN (fi-byt-n2820) fdo#101705

fdo#101600 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101600
fdo#101705 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101705

fi-bdw-5557u     total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:450s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14  time:441s
fi-blb-e6850     total:279  pass:224  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:54  time:361s
fi-bsw-n3050     total:279  pass:243  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:36  time:560s
fi-bxt-j4205     total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:525s
fi-byt-j1900     total:279  pass:254  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:528s
fi-byt-n2820     total:279  pass:250  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:507s
fi-glk-2a        total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:610s
fi-hsw-4770      total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:446s
fi-hsw-4770r     total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:431s
fi-ilk-650       total:279  pass:229  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:50  time:418s
fi-ivb-3520m     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:509s
fi-ivb-3770      total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:476s
fi-kbl-7500u     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:479s
fi-kbl-7560u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:594s
fi-kbl-r         total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:598s
fi-pnv-d510      total:147  pass:113  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:33 
fi-skl-6260u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:471s
fi-skl-6700k     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:472s
fi-skl-6770hq    total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:486s
fi-skl-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:266  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:13  time:442s
fi-skl-x1585l    total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:480s
fi-snb-2520m     total:279  pass:251  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:543s
fi-snb-2600      total:279  pass:250  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:409s

ada53b43f81fe618f3f0f1dfbd3dd776bb277323 drm-tip: 2017y-08m-16d-15h-18m-56s UTC integration manifest
7493a82e6755 drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_5421/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Imre Deak]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:23:10AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.
> 
> The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
> true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
> check for now and look a couple lines after:
> 
> 	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> "nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and multiply
> by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.  

AFAICS it wouldn't overflow due the promotion to unsigned long
by '* sizeof(u32)'.

> The "args->buffer_count"
> is also an unsigned int so it could overflow if it's set to UINT_MAX
> when we do:
> 
> 	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, this could overflow.

> Fixes: 2889caa92321 ("drm/i915: Eliminate lots of iterations over the execobjects array")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> index 15ab3e6792f9..f569721aad1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> @@ -2152,7 +2152,7 @@ get_fence_array(struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args,
>  	if (!(args->flags & I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY))
>  		return NULL;
>  
> -	if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))
> +	if (nfences > UINT_MAX / sizeof(*fences))
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  
>  	user = u64_to_user_ptr(args->cliprects_ptr);
> @@ -2520,7 +2520,7 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>  	unsigned int i;
>  	int err;
>  
> -	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
> +	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > UINT_MAX / sz - 1) {
>  		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
> @@ -2609,7 +2609,7 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>  	struct drm_syncobj **fences = NULL;
>  	int err;
>  
> -	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
> +	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > UINT_MAX / sz - 1) {
>  		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:37:00PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:23:10AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.
> > 
> > The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
> > true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
> > check for now and look a couple lines after:
> > 
> > 	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
> >                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > "nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and multiply
> > by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.  
> 
> AFAICS it wouldn't overflow due the promotion to unsigned long
> by '* sizeof(u32)'.
> 

It first multplies "nfences * 2" as unsigned int, then it type promotes
to size_t and multiplies by sizeof().  Only the first multiplication has
an integer overflow bug.

regards,
dan carpenter

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Imre Deak]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:50:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:37:00PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:23:10AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.
> > > 
> > > The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
> > > true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
> > > check for now and look a couple lines after:
> > > 
> > > 	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
> > >                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > "nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and multiply
> > > by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.  
> > 
> > AFAICS it wouldn't overflow due the promotion to unsigned long
> > by '* sizeof(u32)'.
> > 
> 
> It first multplies "nfences * 2" as unsigned int, then it type promotes
> to size_t and multiplies by sizeof().  Only the first multiplication has
> an integer overflow bug.

Err, that's correct. Sorry for the noise.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

[PATCH] drm/i915: Prevent overflow of execbuf.buffer_count and num_cliprects

[Chris Wilson]

We check whether the multiplies will overflow prior to calling
kmalloc_array so that we can respond with -EINVAL for the invalid user
arguments rather than treating it as an -ENOMEM that would otherwise
occur. However, as Dan Carpenter pointed out, we did an addition on the
unsigned int prior to passing to kmalloc_array where it would be
promoted to size_t for the calculation, thereby allowing it to overflow
and underallocate.

Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---

I want to keep that check for reporting an attempted overflow as -EINVAL
so we can keep distinguishing rogue parameters from the excessively
large allocations. So we just need to do the promotion ourselves, right?
-Chris

---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
index 8e8bc7aefd9c..2d69af40ab68 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -2143,7 +2143,7 @@ static struct drm_syncobj **
 get_fence_array(struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args,
 		struct drm_file *file)
 {
-	const unsigned int nfences = args->num_cliprects;
+	const size_t nfences = args->num_cliprects;
 	struct drm_i915_gem_exec_fence __user *user;
 	struct drm_syncobj **fences;
 	unsigned int n;
@@ -2152,14 +2152,14 @@ get_fence_array(struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args,
 	if (!(args->flags & I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY))
 		return NULL;
 
-	if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))
+	if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / max(sizeof(*fences), 2*sizeof(u32)))
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
 	user = u64_to_user_ptr(args->cliprects_ptr);
 	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
 		return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
 
-	fences = kvmalloc_array(args->num_cliprects, sizeof(*fences),
+	fences = kvmalloc_array(nfences, sizeof(*fences),
 				__GFP_NOWARN | GFP_TEMPORARY);
 	if (!fences)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -2517,10 +2517,11 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 exec2;
 	struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object *exec_list = NULL;
 	struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 *exec2_list = NULL;
+	const size_t count = args->buffer_count;
 	unsigned int i;
 	int err;
 
-	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
+	if (count < 1 || count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
@@ -2540,9 +2541,9 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* Copy in the exec list from userland */
-	exec_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count, sizeof(*exec_list),
+	exec_list = kvmalloc_array(count, sizeof(*exec_list),
 				   __GFP_NOWARN | GFP_TEMPORARY);
-	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
+	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(count + 1, sz,
 				    __GFP_NOWARN | GFP_TEMPORARY);
 	if (exec_list == NULL || exec2_list == NULL) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("Failed to allocate exec list for %d buffers\n",
@@ -2553,7 +2554,7 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	}
 	err = copy_from_user(exec_list,
 			     u64_to_user_ptr(args->buffers_ptr),
-			     sizeof(*exec_list) * args->buffer_count);
+			     sizeof(*exec_list) * count);
 	if (err) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("copy %d exec entries failed %d\n",
 			  args->buffer_count, err);
@@ -2607,10 +2608,11 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args = data;
 	struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 *exec2_list;
 	struct drm_syncobj **fences = NULL;
+	const size_t count = args->buffer_count;
 	int err;
 
-	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
-		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
+	if (count < 1 || count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
+		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %zd buffers\n", count);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
@@ -2618,17 +2620,17 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* Allocate an extra slot for use by the command parser */
-	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
+	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(count + 1, sz,
 				    __GFP_NOWARN | GFP_TEMPORARY);
 	if (exec2_list == NULL) {
-		DRM_DEBUG("Failed to allocate exec list for %d buffers\n",
-			  args->buffer_count);
+		DRM_DEBUG("Failed to allocate exec list for %zd buffers\n",
+			  count);
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 	if (copy_from_user(exec2_list,
 			   u64_to_user_ptr(args->buffers_ptr),
-			   sizeof(*exec2_list) * args->buffer_count)) {
-		DRM_DEBUG("copy %d exec entries failed\n", args->buffer_count);
+			   sizeof(*exec2_list) * count)) {
+		DRM_DEBUG("copy %zd exec entries failed\n", count);
 		kvfree(exec2_list);
 		return -EFAULT;
 	}
-- 
2.14.1

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests (rev2)

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests (rev2)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/28898/
State : success

== Summary ==

Series 28898v2 drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/28898/revisions/2/mbox/

Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
        Subgroup suspend-read-crc-pipe-b:
                pass       -> DMESG-WARN (fi-byt-n2820) fdo#101705

fdo#101705 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101705

fi-bdw-5557u     total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:460s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14  time:442s
fi-blb-e6850     total:279  pass:224  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:54  time:358s
fi-bsw-n3050     total:279  pass:243  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:36  time:563s
fi-bxt-j4205     total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:519s
fi-byt-j1900     total:279  pass:254  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:524s
fi-byt-n2820     total:279  pass:250  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:513s
fi-glk-2a        total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:609s
fi-hsw-4770      total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:443s
fi-hsw-4770r     total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:423s
fi-ilk-650       total:279  pass:229  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:50  time:427s
fi-ivb-3520m     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:496s
fi-ivb-3770      total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:474s
fi-kbl-7500u     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:477s
fi-kbl-7560u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:598s
fi-kbl-r         total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:597s
fi-pnv-d510      total:279  pass:223  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:55  time:538s
fi-skl-6260u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:473s
fi-skl-6700k     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:477s
fi-skl-6770hq    total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:492s
fi-skl-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:266  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:13  time:440s
fi-skl-x1585l    total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:480s
fi-snb-2520m     total:279  pass:251  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:544s
fi-snb-2600      total:279  pass:250  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:412s

ada53b43f81fe618f3f0f1dfbd3dd776bb277323 drm-tip: 2017y-08m-16d-15h-18m-56s UTC integration manifest
bdc340d1c6e8 drm/i915: Prevent overflow of execbuf.buffer_count and num_cliprects

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_5423/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[PATCH v2] drm/i915: Prevent overflow of execbuf.buffer_count and num_cliprects

[Chris Wilson]

We check whether the multiplies will overflow prior to calling
kmalloc_array so that we can respond with -EINVAL for the invalid user
arguments rather than treating it as an -ENOMEM that would otherwise
occur. However, as Dan Carpenter pointed out, we did an addition on the
unsigned int prior to passing to kmalloc_array where it would be
promoted to size_t for the calculation, thereby allowing it to overflow
and underallocate.

v2: buffer_count is currently limited to INT_MAX because we treat it as
signaled variable for LUT_HANDLE in eb_lookup_vma

Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
index 8e8bc7aefd9c..b1cfbe3ae959 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -2143,7 +2143,7 @@ static struct drm_syncobj **
 get_fence_array(struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args,
 		struct drm_file *file)
 {
-	const unsigned int nfences = args->num_cliprects;
+	const size_t nfences = args->num_cliprects;
 	struct drm_i915_gem_exec_fence __user *user;
 	struct drm_syncobj **fences;
 	unsigned int n;
@@ -2152,14 +2152,14 @@ get_fence_array(struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args,
 	if (!(args->flags & I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY))
 		return NULL;
 
-	if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))
+	if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / max(sizeof(*fences), 2*sizeof(u32)))
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
 	user = u64_to_user_ptr(args->cliprects_ptr);
 	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
 		return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
 
-	fences = kvmalloc_array(args->num_cliprects, sizeof(*fences),
+	fences = kvmalloc_array(nfences, sizeof(*fences),
 				__GFP_NOWARN | GFP_TEMPORARY);
 	if (!fences)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -2517,11 +2517,13 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 exec2;
 	struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object *exec_list = NULL;
 	struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 *exec2_list = NULL;
+	const size_t count = args->buffer_count;
 	unsigned int i;
 	int err;
 
-	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
-		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
+	/* Lookups via HANDLE_LUT are limited to INT_MAX (see eb_create()) */
+	if (count < 1 || count > INT_MAX || count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
+		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %zd buffers\n", count);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
@@ -2540,9 +2542,9 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* Copy in the exec list from userland */
-	exec_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count, sizeof(*exec_list),
+	exec_list = kvmalloc_array(count, sizeof(*exec_list),
 				   __GFP_NOWARN | GFP_TEMPORARY);
-	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
+	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(count + 1, sz,
 				    __GFP_NOWARN | GFP_TEMPORARY);
 	if (exec_list == NULL || exec2_list == NULL) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("Failed to allocate exec list for %d buffers\n",
@@ -2553,7 +2555,7 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	}
 	err = copy_from_user(exec_list,
 			     u64_to_user_ptr(args->buffers_ptr),
-			     sizeof(*exec_list) * args->buffer_count);
+			     sizeof(*exec_list) * count);
 	if (err) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("copy %d exec entries failed %d\n",
 			  args->buffer_count, err);
@@ -2607,10 +2609,11 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args = data;
 	struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 *exec2_list;
 	struct drm_syncobj **fences = NULL;
+	const size_t count = args->buffer_count;
 	int err;
 
-	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
-		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
+	if (count < 1 || count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
+		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %zd buffers\n", count);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
@@ -2618,17 +2621,17 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* Allocate an extra slot for use by the command parser */
-	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
+	exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(count + 1, sz,
 				    __GFP_NOWARN | GFP_TEMPORARY);
 	if (exec2_list == NULL) {
-		DRM_DEBUG("Failed to allocate exec list for %d buffers\n",
-			  args->buffer_count);
+		DRM_DEBUG("Failed to allocate exec list for %zd buffers\n",
+			  count);
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 	if (copy_from_user(exec2_list,
 			   u64_to_user_ptr(args->buffers_ptr),
-			   sizeof(*exec2_list) * args->buffer_count)) {
-		DRM_DEBUG("copy %d exec entries failed\n", args->buffer_count);
+			   sizeof(*exec2_list) * count)) {
+		DRM_DEBUG("copy %zd exec entries failed\n", count);
 		kvfree(exec2_list);
 		return -EFAULT;
 	}
-- 
2.14.1

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests (rev3)

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests (rev3)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/28898/
State : success

== Summary ==

Series 28898v3 drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/28898/revisions/3/mbox/

Test gem_exec_flush:
        Subgroup basic-batch-kernel-default-uc:
                pass       -> FAIL       (fi-snb-2600) fdo#100007

fdo#100007 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100007

fi-bdw-5557u     total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:449s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14  time:434s
fi-blb-e6850     total:279  pass:224  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:54  time:362s
fi-bsw-n3050     total:279  pass:243  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:36  time:545s
fi-bxt-j4205     total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:521s
fi-byt-j1900     total:279  pass:254  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:523s
fi-byt-n2820     total:279  pass:251  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:514s
fi-glk-2a        total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:607s
fi-hsw-4770      total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:444s
fi-hsw-4770r     total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:422s
fi-ilk-650       total:279  pass:229  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:50  time:424s
fi-ivb-3520m     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:502s
fi-ivb-3770      total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:473s
fi-kbl-7500u     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:483s
fi-kbl-7560u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:590s
fi-kbl-r         total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:599s
fi-pnv-d510      total:279  pass:223  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:55  time:528s
fi-skl-6260u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:475s
fi-skl-6700k     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:476s
fi-skl-6770hq    total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:483s
fi-skl-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:266  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:13  time:444s
fi-skl-x1585l    total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:486s
fi-snb-2520m     total:279  pass:251  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:542s
fi-snb-2600      total:279  pass:249  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:29  time:407s

ada53b43f81fe618f3f0f1dfbd3dd776bb277323 drm-tip: 2017y-08m-16d-15h-18m-56s UTC integration manifest
777232c3b82a drm/i915: Prevent overflow of execbuf.buffer_count and num_cliprects

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_5424/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Jason Ekstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1351 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:50:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:37:00PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:23:10AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.
> > > >
> > > > The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
> > > > true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
> > > > check for now and look a couple lines after:
> > > >
> > > >   if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
> > > >                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > "nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and
> multiply
> > > > by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.
> > >
> > > AFAICS it wouldn't overflow due the promotion to unsigned long
> > > by '* sizeof(u32)'.
> > >
> >
> > It first multplies "nfences * 2" as unsigned int, then it type promotes
> > to size_t and multiplies by sizeof().  Only the first multiplication has
> > an integer overflow bug.
>
> Err, that's correct. Sorry for the noise.
>

Why not just replace the "2 * sizeof(u32)" with a "sizeof(*user)".  That's
what we really want to check.  I have no idea how it ended up being "2 *
sizeof(u32)"

--Jason

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2046 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:16:03AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:50:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:37:00PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:23:10AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > > There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
> > > > > true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
> > > > > check for now and look a couple lines after:
> > > > >
> > > > >   if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
> > > > >                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > "nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and
> > multiply
> > > > > by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.
> > > >
> > > > AFAICS it wouldn't overflow due the promotion to unsigned long
> > > > by '* sizeof(u32)'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It first multplies "nfences * 2" as unsigned int, then it type promotes
> > > to size_t and multiplies by sizeof().  Only the first multiplication has
> > > an integer overflow bug.
> >
> > Err, that's correct. Sorry for the noise.
> >
> 
> Why not just replace the "2 * sizeof(u32)" with a "sizeof(*user)".  That's
> what we really want to check.  I have no idea how it ended up being "2 *
> sizeof(u32)"

Yeah.  That's more readable.  I will resend.

regards,
dan carpenter


_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[PATCH v2] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Dan Carpenter]

There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.

The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
check for now and look a couple lines after:

        if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
"nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and multiply
by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.  The multiplication by
sizeof(u32) is OK because that gets type promoted to size_t.  This patch
changes the access_ok() check to use sizeof(*user) which fixes the
integer overflow and is also more readable.

The "args->buffer_count" variable is an unsigned int as well so it could
overflow if it's set to UINT_MAX when we do:

        exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Originally, those two integer overflow checks were against UINT_MAX
instead of SIZE_MAX and this patch changes them back.

Fixes: 2889caa92321 ("drm/i915: Eliminate lots of iterations over the execobjects array")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
---
v2: Use sizeof(*users)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
index 15ab3e6792f9..11419b81cf13 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -2156,7 +2156,7 @@ get_fence_array(struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 *args,
 		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 
 	user = u64_to_user_ptr(args->cliprects_ptr);
-	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
+	if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * sizeof(*user)))
 		return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
 
 	fences = kvmalloc_array(args->num_cliprects, sizeof(*fences),
@@ -2520,7 +2520,7 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	unsigned int i;
 	int err;
 
-	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
+	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > UINT_MAX / sz - 1) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
@@ -2609,7 +2609,7 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 	struct drm_syncobj **fences = NULL;
 	int err;
 
-	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > SIZE_MAX / sz - 1) {
+	if (args->buffer_count < 1 || args->buffer_count > UINT_MAX / sz - 1) {
 		DRM_DEBUG("execbuf2 with %d buffers\n", args->buffer_count);
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests (rev4)

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests (rev4)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/28898/
State : success

== Summary ==

Series 28898v4 drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/28898/revisions/4/mbox/

fi-bdw-5557u     total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:453s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14  time:433s
fi-blb-e6850     total:279  pass:224  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:54  time:361s
fi-bsw-n3050     total:279  pass:243  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:36  time:549s
fi-bxt-j4205     total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:520s
fi-byt-j1900     total:279  pass:254  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:523s
fi-byt-n2820     total:279  pass:250  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:528s
fi-glk-2a        total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:608s
fi-hsw-4770      total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:442s
fi-hsw-4770r     total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:422s
fi-ilk-650       total:279  pass:229  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:50  time:420s
fi-ivb-3520m     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:501s
fi-ivb-3770      total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:480s
fi-kbl-7500u     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:479s
fi-kbl-7560u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:604s
fi-kbl-r         total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:596s
fi-pnv-d510      total:279  pass:223  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:55  time:525s
fi-skl-6260u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:472s
fi-skl-6700k     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:481s
fi-skl-6770hq    total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:482s
fi-skl-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:266  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:13  time:443s
fi-skl-x1585l    total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:477s
fi-snb-2520m     total:279  pass:251  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:544s
fi-snb-2600      total:279  pass:250  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:406s

cdafe36f7b6f8fa0ae1a90babce68cbd8ccc98cb drm-tip: 2017y-08m-17d-21h-02m-32s UTC integration manifest
278efdb8515f drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_5433/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Dan Carpenter (2017-08-18 08:07:00)
> There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.
> 
> The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
> true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
> check for now and look a couple lines after:
> 
>         if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> "nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and multiply
> by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.  The multiplication by
> sizeof(u32) is OK because that gets type promoted to size_t.  This patch
> changes the access_ok() check to use sizeof(*user) which fixes the
> integer overflow and is also more readable.
> 
> The "args->buffer_count" variable is an unsigned int as well so it could
> overflow if it's set to UINT_MAX when we do:
> 
>         exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Originally, those two integer overflow checks were against UINT_MAX
> instead of SIZE_MAX and this patch changes them back.
> 
> Fixes: 2889caa92321 ("drm/i915: Eliminate lots of iterations over the execobjects array")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
> v2: Use sizeof(*users)

Please do consider my alternative.
-Chris

Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Fix integer overflow tests

[Dan Carpenter]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:46:25AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Dan Carpenter (2017-08-18 08:07:00)
> > There are some potential integer overflows here on 64 bit systems.
> > 
> > The condition "if (nfences > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(*fences))" can only be
> > true on 32 bit systems, it's a no-op on 64 bit, so let's ignore the
> > check for now and look a couple lines after:
> > 
> >         if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, user, nfences * 2 * sizeof(u32)))
> >                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > "nfences" is an unsigned int, so if we set it to UINT_MAX and multiply
> > by two, it's going to have an integer overflow.  The multiplication by
> > sizeof(u32) is OK because that gets type promoted to size_t.  This patch
> > changes the access_ok() check to use sizeof(*user) which fixes the
> > integer overflow and is also more readable.
> > 
> > The "args->buffer_count" variable is an unsigned int as well so it could
> > overflow if it's set to UINT_MAX when we do:
> > 
> >         exec2_list = kvmalloc_array(args->buffer_count + 1, sz,
> >                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > Originally, those two integer overflow checks were against UINT_MAX
> > instead of SIZE_MAX and this patch changes them back.
> > 
> > Fixes: 2889caa92321 ("drm/i915: Eliminate lots of iterations over the execobjects array")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Use sizeof(*users)
> 
> Please do consider my alternative.

I don't think you sent the email?  I haven't recieved any emails from
you on either my oracle.com address or through the kernel janitors list.

Can you resend?

regards
dan carpenter