Hi Wolfram,

> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:54:09PM -0700, Compostella, Jeremy wrote:
> > On a I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA read request, if data->block[0] is
> > greater than I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX + 1, the underlying I2C driver writes
> greater or equal?
> > data out of the msgbuf1 boundary.
> > 
> > It is possible from a user application to run into that issue by call
> > the I2C_SMBUS ioctl with data.block[0] greater than
> > I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX + 1.
> ditto?

Actually, this is a bit more complicated.  Theoretically it should be
"greater than I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX". The documentation
(Documentation/i2c/dev-interface) says "The block buffers need not be
longer than 32 bytes".  However, in practice, The
i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated() function defines:

       unsigned char msgbuf1[I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX+2];

It uses the first element to store the requested length.  Therefore,
in practice, we hit the issue with "greater than I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX +
1".

> Basically good, yet to make the code easier to read I'd suggest
> something like this? Untested, wanted to hear your opinion first.

>  drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
> index 4bb9927afd0106..5fc5ddd965434f 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-smbus.c
> @@ -397,16 +397,16 @@ static s32 i2c_smbus_xfer_emulated(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, u16 addr,
>  				   the underlying bus driver */
>  		break;
>  	case I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA:
> +		if (data->block[0] > I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX) {
> +			dev_err(&adapter->dev, "Invalid block size %d\n",
> +				data->block[0]);
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +
>  		if (read_write == I2C_SMBUS_READ) {
>  			msg[1].len = data->block[0];
>  		} else {
>  			msg[0].len = data->block[0] + 1;
> -			if (msg[0].len > I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX + 1) {
> -				dev_err(&adapter->dev,
> -					"Invalid block write size %d\n",
> -					data->block[0]);
> -				return -EINVAL;
> -			}
>  			for (i = 1; i <= data->block[0]; i++)
>  				msgbuf0[i] = data->block[i];
>  		}

This is a better option, I think I have made such a version at some
points but did not want to touch the other case for some reasons that
I cannot remember now :/

I have a added a little c ternary instruction to keep the same level
of debug/error information.  If you don't like it we can remove it.

I have updated, tested and attached the new version to this email.  I
also improved the commit message by adding some information about what
is expected by the documentation. I don't know what is the process to
update the patch to the mailing list.  Should I send a new email with
the new patch instead ?

Thanks,

Jeremy