From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Ziming Du <duziming2@huawei.com>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, alex@shazbot.org, chrisw@redhat.com,
jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, liuyongqiang13@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] PCI: Prevent overflow in proc_bus_pci_write()
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 13:32:53 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260303193253.GA3817951@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260116081723.1603603-4-duziming2@huawei.com>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 04:17:20PM +0800, Ziming Du wrote:
> From: Yongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@huawei.com>
>
> When the value of *ppos over the INT_MAX, the pos is over set to a
> negative value which will be passed to get_user() or
> pci_user_write_config_dword(). Unexpected behavior such as a soft lockup
> will happen as follows:
I think it's crazy to worry about offsets overflowing INT_MAX. We're
doing PCI config accesses. Config space is only 4K at most, so we
already have a much smaller upper bound on the offset.
The procfs proc_bus_pci_write() is essentially the same as the sysfs
pci_write_config(). They should share some common implementation.
> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 130s! [syz.3.109:3444]
> RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x17/0x30
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> pci_user_write_config_dword+0x126/0x1f0
> proc_bus_pci_write+0x273/0x470
> proc_reg_write+0x1b6/0x280
> do_iter_write+0x48e/0x790
> vfs_writev+0x125/0x4a0
> __x64_sys_pwritev+0x1e2/0x2a0
> do_syscall_64+0x59/0x110
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
>
> Fix this by adding a non-negative check before assign *ppos to pos.
>
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ziming Du <duziming2@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/proc.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/proc.c b/drivers/pci/proc.c
> index 9348a0fb80847..2d51b26edbe74 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/proc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/proc.c
> @@ -113,10 +113,14 @@ static ssize_t proc_bus_pci_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> {
> struct inode *ino = file_inode(file);
> struct pci_dev *dev = pde_data(ino);
> - int pos = *ppos;
> + int pos;
> int size = dev->cfg_size;
> int cnt, ret;
>
> + if (*ppos > INT_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + pos = *ppos;
The first issue here is that "*ppos" (loff_t) is long long, but "pos"
is int, so we're assigning a 64-bit value to a 32-bit container and
losing any high bits. So an offset of 0x100000000 is incorrectly
treated as valid.
A change like this should fix that and bring this closer to the
pci_write_config() implementation:
- int pos = *ppos;
+ loff_t pos = *ppos;
- if (pos >= size)
+ if (pos > dev->cfg_size)
return 0;
There's also a second issue here:
if (pos + nbytes > size)
nbytes = size - pos;
"pos" is a signed int, "nbytes" is size_t, which is an *unsigned* int,
so "pos" is implicitly converted to an unsigned value. I think this
is what causes the soft lockup you reported because an offset like the
0x80800001 in your test case is converted from signed -2139095039 to
unsigned 2155872257. "size" is dev->cfg_size, e.g., 4096, so
2155872257 + nbytes is certainly larger than 4096, so nbytes ends up
being set to some huge unsigned size_t value.
This issue would probably be avoided simply by returning early when
"pos" is out of range. But mixing signed and unsigned in that
"pos + nbytes" expression is just asking for trouble and we should
avoid it as pci_write_config() does.
So I'd like to see something that makes the procfs accessor
validations look like the sysfs accessors. It's a little messy
because they use different names, so the patches will be ugly. But I
think it's worth it to make them work the same way so we don't have to
analyze them separately.
Maybe could be done in a couple steps, e.g., one to simply rename
things and a second to make the functional changes.
Bjorn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-03 19:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-16 8:17 [PATCH v4 0/4] Miscellaneous fixes for pci subsystem Ziming Du
2026-01-16 8:17 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] PCI/sysfs: Prohibit unaligned access to I/O port Ziming Du
2026-02-26 17:00 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-01-16 8:17 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] PCI/sysfs: Fix null pointer dereference during hotplug Ziming Du
2026-02-26 17:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-02-27 2:30 ` duziming
2026-04-02 7:23 ` duziming
2026-01-16 8:17 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] PCI: Prevent overflow in proc_bus_pci_write() Ziming Du
2026-03-03 19:32 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2026-01-16 8:17 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] PCI: Prevent overflow in proc_bus_pci_read() Ziming Du
2026-01-30 7:53 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] Miscellaneous fixes for pci subsystem duziming
2026-02-06 22:29 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-02-26 9:07 ` duziming
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=20260303193253.GA3817951@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=alex@shazbot.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=chrisw@redhat.com \
--cc=duziming2@huawei.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuyongqiang13@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox