From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: "Nikolova, Tatyana E" <tatyana.e.nikolova@intel.com>
Cc: "dledford@redhat.com" <dledford@redhat.com>,
"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
"Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>,
"Ismail, Mustafa" <mustafa.ismail@intel.com>,
coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 1/3] RDMA/irdma: Check contents of user-space irdma_mem_reg_req object
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:33:36 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210622233336.GH2371267@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB4692C781B07DD976DD9D7C7FCB099@DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 09:56:42PM +0000, Nikolova, Tatyana E wrote:
> > > switch (req.reg_type) {
> > > case IRDMA_MEMREG_TYPE_QP:
> > > + if (req.sq_pages + req.rq_pages + shadow_pgcnt > iwmr-
> > >page_cnt) {
> >
> > Math on values from userspace should use the check overflow helpers or
> > otherwise be designed to be overflow safe
>
> The mem_reg_req fields sq_pages and rq_pages are u16 and the
> variable shadow_pgcnt is u8. They should be promoted to u32 when
> compared with iwmr->page_cnt which is u32. Isn't this overflow safe?
I didn't check the sizes carefully, and I'm always nervous about
relying on implicit promotion for security properties as it is so
subtle and easy to get screwed up during maintenance
> Is the issue you are mentioning about this line:
> > > + qpmr->shadow = (dma_addr_t)arr[req->sq_pages + req->rq_pages];
I assume this is safe because of the if above?
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-22 23:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-22 17:52 [PATCH rdma-next 0/3] irdma coverity fixes Tatyana Nikolova
2021-06-22 17:52 ` [PATCH rdma-next 1/3] RDMA/irdma: Check contents of user-space irdma_mem_reg_req object Tatyana Nikolova
2021-06-22 17:58 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-22 21:56 ` Nikolova, Tatyana E
2021-06-22 23:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-06-22 17:52 ` [PATCH rdma-next 2/3] RDMA/irdma: Check return value from ib_umem_find_best_pgsz Tatyana Nikolova
2021-06-22 18:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-22 17:52 ` [PATCH rdma-next 3/3] RDMA/irdma: Fix potential overflow expression in irdma_prm_get_pbles Tatyana Nikolova
2021-06-22 18:07 ` Jason Gunthorpe
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=20210622233336.GH2371267@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook+coverity-bot@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mustafa.ismail@intel.com \
--cc=shiraz.saleem@intel.com \
--cc=tatyana.e.nikolova@intel.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