From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 15:42:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mptsas: fix undefined behaviour of a shift of an int by more than 31 places Message-Id: <1557416545.4268.22.camel@HansenPartnership.com> List-Id: References: <20190504164010.24937-1-colin.king@canonical.com> <1557027274.2821.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1557325468.3196.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <9b4c84b5-31eb-6068-57c2-80ededc21b43@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <9b4c84b5-31eb-6068-57c2-80ededc21b43@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hannes Reinecke , Colin Ian King , Sathya Prakash , Chaitra P B , Suganath Prabu Subramani , MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 17:30 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 5/8/19 4:24 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 14:07 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote: > > > On 05/05/2019 04:34, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 17:40 +0100, Colin King wrote: > > > > > From: Colin Ian King > > > > > > > > > > Currently the shift of int value 1 by more than 31 places can > > > > > result in undefined behaviour. Fix this by making the 1 a ULL > > > > > value before the shift operation. > > > > > > > > Fusion SAS is pretty ancient. I thought the largest one ever > > > > produced had four phys, so how did you produce the overflow? > > > > > > This was an issue found by static analysis with Coverity; so I > > > guess won't happen in the wild, in which case the patch could be > > > ignored. > > > > The point I was more making is that if we thought this could ever > > happen in practice, we'd need more error handling than simply this: > > we'd be setting the phy_bitmap to zero which would be every bit as > > bad as some random illegal value. > > > > Thing is, mptsas is used as the default emulation in VMWare, and > that does allow you to do some pretty weird configurations (I've > found myself fixing a bug with SATA hotplug on mptsas once ...). > So I wouldn't discard this issue out of hand. I'm not, I'm just saying the proposed fix is no fix at all since it would just produce undefined behaviour in the driver. I thought the issue might have been coming from VMWare, which is why I asked how the bug was seen. The proper fix is probably to fail attachment if the phy number goes over a fixed value (16 sounds reasonable) but if it's never a problem in the field, I'm happy doing nothing because we have no real idea what the reasonable value is. James