[PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

[PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

[Laura Abbott]

The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.

Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
---
Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
your bootup problem?

---
 drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
--- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
+++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
@@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
 	const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
 	base &= PAGE_MASK;
 	size &= PAGE_MASK;
+
+#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
+	if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
+		pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
+				base, base + size);
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
+		pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
+				ULONG_MAX, base + size);
+		size = ULONG_MAX - base;
+	}
+#endif
+
 	if (base + size < phys_offset) {
 		pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
 			   base, base + size);
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

[PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Laura,

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>

Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>

> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?

Thanks, works fine!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
>> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
>> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
>> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
>> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
>> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
>> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>>
>> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>
>> ---
>> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
>> your bootup problem?
>
> Thanks, works fine!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
>
> ---
>  drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
>         const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
>         base &= PAGE_MASK;
>         size &= PAGE_MASK;
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> +       if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
> +               pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> +                               base, base + size);
> +               return;
> +       }
> +
> +       if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
> +               pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
> +                               ULONG_MAX, base + size);
> +               size = ULONG_MAX - base;
> +       }
> +#endif
> +
>         if (base + size < phys_offset) {
>                 pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
>                            base, base + size);
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation

[PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
>
> ---
>  drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
>         const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
>         base &= PAGE_MASK;
>         size &= PAGE_MASK;
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> +       if (base > ULONG_MAX) {

How about removing the ifdef and doing something like:

if ((base >> 32) && (sizeof(phys_addr_t) != sizeof(u64)))

> +               pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> +                               base, base + size);
> +               return;
> +       }
> +
> +       if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
> +               pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
> +                               ULONG_MAX, base + size);
> +               size = ULONG_MAX - base;
> +       }
> +#endif
> +
>         if (base + size < phys_offset) {
>                 pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
>                            base, base + size);
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Rob Herring wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> > of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> > the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> > be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> > being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> > range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> > phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
> >
> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> > Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> > your bootup problem?
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> >         const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> >         base &= PAGE_MASK;
> >         size &= PAGE_MASK;
> > +
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> > +       if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
> 
> How about removing the ifdef and doing something like:
> 
> if ((base >> 32) && (sizeof(phys_addr_t) != sizeof(u64)))

That is what I was about to suggest as well.  Except that I'd use 
sizeof(phys_addr_t) < sizeof(u64) just in case.


Nicolas