From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: qcom: Honor IOMMU provider's #iommu-cells in qcom_pcie_config_sid_1_9_0()
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 14:44:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260907144408.EF06B1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260907143349.317495-1-mani@kernel.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
New issues:
- [High] Out-of-bounds memory read when `iommu-map` property length is less than 2 cells.
- [High] Unvalidated `#iommu-cells` property causes integer overflow, leading to out-of-bounds memory reads or divide-by-zero undefined behavior.
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Infinite loop if the number of `iommu-map` entries exceeds the fixed BDF-to-SID hardware table capacity.
--
commit 5e6355134714e5a9f21664a5ac644c1347a1924b
Author: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@oss.qualcomm.com>
PCI: qcom: Honor IOMMU provider's #iommu-cells in qcom_pcie_config_sid_1_9_0()
This commit updates qcom_pcie_config_sid_1_9_0() to properly handle
iommu-map entries where the IOMMU provider uses more than one iommu-cell.
It dynamically calculates the per-entry stride based on the IOMMU's
#iommu-cells property instead of assuming a fixed four-word stride.
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> index b58a607b713f5..42cbeef083caf 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1143,50 +1143,90 @@ static void qcom_pcie_deinit_2_7_0(struct qcom_pcie *pcie)
>
> static int qcom_pcie_config_sid_1_9_0(struct qcom_pcie *pcie)
> {
[ ... ]
> + if (size % sizeof(*map)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Malformed iommu-map property\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + nr_cells = size / sizeof(*map);
> +
> + /*
> + * Each iommu-map entry is: rid-base (1 cell), phandle (1 cell),
> + * IOMMU specifier (#iommu-cells cells), length (1 cell). Read
> + * #iommu-cells from the IOMMU provider referenced by the first
> + * entry to compute the per-entry stride.
> + */
> + phandle = be32_to_cpu(map[1]);
[Severity: High]
Can this cause an out-of-bounds read if the iommu-map property is too short?
The function verifies the property size is a multiple of 4 bytes, but fails
to verify the minimum required length (at least 2 cells) before accessing
map[1] to extract the phandle. A malformed device tree with an iommu-map
property of 4 bytes (1 cell) could trigger an out-of-bounds memory read
during probe.
> + iommu_np = of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle);
> + if (!iommu_np) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to find IOMMU node in iommu-map\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + if (of_property_read_u32(iommu_np, "#iommu-cells", &iommu_cells))
> + iommu_cells = 1;
> + of_node_put(iommu_np);
> +
> + entry_cells = 3 + iommu_cells;
[Severity: High]
Does this code allow an unvalidated #iommu-cells property to cause an
integer overflow?
If a device tree specifies an excessively large value for #iommu-cells,
such as 0xFFFFFFFE, entry_cells = 3 + iommu_cells will wrap around to 1.
If the value is 0xFFFFFFFD, it wraps to 0.
> +
> + /*
> + * Retain backward compatibility with DTs that describe iommu-map
> + * with 4-cell entries against an IOMMU declaring #iommu-cells = 2,
> + * matching the fallback in drivers/of/base.c::of_check_bad_map().
> + */
> + if (iommu_cells == 2 && !(nr_cells % 4)) {
[ ... ]
> + }
> +
> + if (nr_cells % entry_cells) {
[Severity: High]
Could the above integer overflow lead to a divide-by-zero here?
If entry_cells wrapped to 0 due to an overflow, this modulo operation will
trigger undefined behavior (divide-by-zero). If it wrapped to a small
non-zero number like 1, it could pass this check and result in
nr_map = nr_cells / 1, potentially causing out-of-bounds reads in the
subsequent loop.
> + dev_err(dev, "Malformed iommu-map property\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + nr_map = nr_cells / entry_cells;
> +
> /* Enable BDF to SID translation by disabling bypass mode (default) */
> val = readl(pcie->parf + PARF_BDF_TO_SID_CFG);
[ ... ]
> /* Look for an available entry to hold the mapping */
> for (i = 0; i < nr_map; i++) {
> - __be16 bdf_be = cpu_to_be16(map[i].bdf);
> - u32 val;
> + u32 bdf = be32_to_cpu(map[i * entry_cells]);
> + u32 sid = be32_to_cpu(map[i * entry_cells + 2]);
> + __be16 bdf_be = cpu_to_be16(bdf);
> u8 hash;
>
> hash = crc8(qcom_pcie_crc8_table, (u8 *)&bdf_be, sizeof(bdf_be), 0);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but can this loop cause a kernel hard lockup?
Just below this in qcom_pcie_config_sid_1_9_0(), there is a linear probing
loop to handle hash collisions:
while (val) {
u8 current_hash = hash++;
...
val = readl(bdf_to_sid_base + hash * sizeof(u32));
}
The hardware table has a capacity of 256 slots (CRC8_TABLE_SIZE). If a device
tree specifies more than 256 entries in iommu-map (or if hash collisions fill
all slots), the while (val) loop continuously increments the 8-bit hash index
and reads occupied slots, wrapping indefinitely. It lacks a termination
condition for a full translation table.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260907143349.317495-1-mani@kernel.org?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-07 14:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-07 14:33 [PATCH] PCI: qcom: Honor IOMMU provider's #iommu-cells in qcom_pcie_config_sid_1_9_0() Manivannan Sadhasivam
2026-09-07 14:44 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-17 5:53 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2026-09-07 15:43 ` Loic Poulain
2026-09-07 15:46 ` Neil Armstrong
2026-09-08 7:24 ` Konrad Dybcio
2026-09-17 6:00 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
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=20260907144408.EF06B1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manivannan.sadhasivam@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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