Linux s390 Architecture development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Markus Elfring" <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, "Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: partitions: Use seq_buf_putc() at 24 places
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 07:35:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260629073509.0CB5B1F00A3D@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7360cab3-7a2f-4903-85f1-0f03387b0d88@web.de>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:

Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Out-of-bounds read in sysv68 partition parser leading to a kernel memory leak.
- [Medium] Uninitialized variable 'len' may lead to a NULL pointer dereference or undefined behavior.
--

commit 350b3ea7021ee2238b49cf91963fe54906868307
Author: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>

block: partitions: Use seq_buf_putc() at 24 places

Single line breaks should occasionally be put into a sequence buffer.
Thus use the seq_buf_putc() function in these implementations.

The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/block/partitions/of.c b/block/partitions/of.c
> index 53664ea06b654..7803e6f4ecdd9 100644
> --- a/block/partitions/of.c
> +++ b/block/partitions/of.c
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ int of_partition(struct parsed_partitions *state)
>  		slot++;
>  	}
>  
> -	seq_buf_puts(&state->pp_buf, "\n");
> +	seq_buf_putc(&state->pp_buf, '\n');

[Severity: Medium]
This is a pre-existing issue, but I noticed a potential uninitialized
variable bug when looking at the partition validation called just before
this in of_partition().

If a device tree partition node is missing the 'reg' property:

block/partitions/of.c:validate_of_partition() {
    ...
	int len;

	const __be32 *reg = of_get_property(np, "reg", &len);
	int a_cells = of_n_addr_cells(np);
	int s_cells = of_n_size_cells(np);

	/* Make sure reg len match the expected addr and size cells */
	if (len / sizeof(*reg) != a_cells + s_cells)
    ...
}

of_get_property() returns NULL and leaves len uninitialized. The code then
divides this uninitialized len by 4 and compares it to expected cell counts.

If the uninitialized stack garbage happens to match, could this proceed to
add_of_partition() where it directly passes the NULL reg pointer to
of_read_number(), unconditionally dereferencing it?

block/partitions/of.c:add_of_partition() {
    ...
	int len;

	const __be32 *reg = of_get_property(np, "reg", &len);
	int a_cells = of_n_addr_cells(np);
	int s_cells = of_n_size_cells(np);

	/* Convert bytes to sector size */
	u64 offset = of_read_number(reg, a_cells) / SECTOR_SIZE;
    ...
}

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/block/partitions/sysv68.c b/block/partitions/sysv68.c
> index 470e0f9de7be3..31d348ac2dfb3 100644
> --- a/block/partitions/sysv68.c
> +++ b/block/partitions/sysv68.c
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ int sysv68_partition(struct parsed_partitions *state)
>  		}
>  		slot++;
>  	}
> -	seq_buf_puts(&state->pp_buf, "\n");
> +	seq_buf_putc(&state->pp_buf, '\n');

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does the loop immediately
preceding this code have an out-of-bounds read issue?

sysv68_partition() reads the number of slices from the untrusted disk
label without validating it against the 512-byte sector buffer bounds:

block/partitions/sysv68.c:sysv68_partition() {
    ...
	slice = (struct slice *)data;
	for (i = 0; i < slices; i++, slice++) {
		if (slot == state->limit)
			break;
		if (be32_to_cpu(slice->nblocks)) {
			put_partition(state, slot,
				be32_to_cpu(slice->blkoff),
				be32_to_cpu(slice->nblocks));
    ...
}

It then iterates up to state->limit (typically 256) times, advancing the
slice pointer. Reading 256 struct slice entries takes 2048 bytes out of a
guaranteed 512-byte sector buffer.

If the 512-byte sector is located near the end of a mapped page, could
reading beyond 512 bytes cross into adjacent physical kernel memory and
leak it via the partition table?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/7360cab3-7a2f-4903-85f1-0f03387b0d88@web.de?part=1

  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-29  7:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <59dfd2ef-2fda-4dd0-a288-52c35613e778@web.de>
     [not found] ` <ajzkRM_RFKBpp0i5@ashevche-desk.local>
     [not found]   ` <7de415a7-457d-4dd2-aebb-8e179fa0bbcd@web.de>
     [not found]     ` <aj061omzs5WN5ar6@ashevche-desk.local>
2026-06-29  7:16       ` [PATCH v2] block: partitions: Use seq_buf_putc() at 24 places Markus Elfring
2026-06-29  7:35         ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-06-29  7:35         ` Andy Shevchenko

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=20260629073509.0CB5B1F00A3D@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=Markus.Elfring@web.de \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --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