[PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9 udc

[PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9 udc

[Ma Ke]

We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host
may not manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.

Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
---
 drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
@@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8 request_type, u16 value,
 	} else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) == USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
 		/* Get endpoint status */
 		int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
+		if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
+			goto stall;
 		struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
 		u16 usep;
 
-- 
2.37.2

RE: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9 udc

[Leo Li]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Ma Ke
> <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9
> udc
> 
> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
> request_type, u16 value,
>  	} else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
>  		/* Get endpoint status */
>  		int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> +		if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
> +			goto stall;

Thanks.  This seems to be the right thing to do.  But normally we don't mix declarations with code within a code block.  Could we re-arrange the code a little bit so declarations stay on top?

>  		struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
>  		u16 usep;
> 
> --
> 2.37.2

Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9 udc

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 28/06/2023 à 19:04, Leo Li a écrit :
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
>> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
>> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Ma Ke
>> <make_ruc2021@163.com>
>> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9
>> udc
>>
>> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
>> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
>> request_type, u16 value,
>>   	} else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
>> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
>>   		/* Get endpoint status */
>>   		int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
>> +		if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
>> +			goto stall;
> 
> Thanks.  This seems to be the right thing to do.  But normally we don't mix declarations with code within a code block.  Could we re-arrange the code a little bit so declarations stay on top?

But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?

The only missing thing is the blank line between the declarations and 
the code, so that we clearly see where declarations end and where code 
start.

> 
>>   		struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
>>   		u16 usep;
>>
>> --
>> 2.37.2
> 

RE: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9 udc

[Leo Li]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:40 PM
> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>; Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> ch9 udc
> 
> 
> 
> Le 28/06/2023 à 19:04, Leo Li a écrit :
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
> >> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
> >> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> >> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Ma Ke
> >> <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> >> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> >> ch9 udc
> >>
> >> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
> >> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
> >>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
> >> request_type, u16 value,
> >>   	} else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
> >> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
> >>   		/* Get endpoint status */
> >>   		int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> >> +		if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
> >> +			goto stall;
> >
> > Thanks.  This seems to be the right thing to do.  But normally we don't mix
> declarations with code within a code block.  Could we re-arrange the code a
> little bit so declarations stay on top?
> 
> But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?

But they were at the beginning of a { } block which is compliant with the C89 standard.  I know gcc is more relaxed from this.  But it is probably still good to stick to the standard?

> 
> The only missing thing is the blank line between the declarations and the
> code, so that we clearly see where declarations end and where code start.
> 
> >
> >>   		struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
> >>   		u16 usep;
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.37.2
> >

Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9 udc

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 28/06/2023 à 23:10, Leo Li a écrit :
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:40 PM
>> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>; Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
>> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
>> ch9 udc
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 28/06/2023 à 19:04, Leo Li a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
>>>> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
>>>> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
>>>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Ma Ke
>>>> <make_ruc2021@163.com>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
>>>> ch9 udc
>>>>
>>>> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
>>>> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>>>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>>>> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>>>> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
>>>> request_type, u16 value,
>>>>    	} else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
>>>> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
>>>>    		/* Get endpoint status */
>>>>    		int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
>>>> +		if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
>>>> +			goto stall;
>>>
>>> Thanks.  This seems to be the right thing to do.  But normally we don't mix
>> declarations with code within a code block.  Could we re-arrange the code a
>> little bit so declarations stay on top?
>>
>> But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?
> 
> But they were at the beginning of a { } block which is compliant with the C89 standard.  I know gcc is more relaxed from this.  But it is probably still good to stick to the standard?

Sorry I misread the patch and failed to see that the declaration block 
was continuing after the change.

So yes don't interleave code with declarations. Leave declaration at the 
top of a block with a blank line between declarations and code.

> 
>>
>> The only missing thing is the blank line between the declarations and the
>> code, so that we clearly see where declarations end and where code start.
>>
>>>
>>>>    		struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
>>>>    		u16 usep;
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.37.2
>>>

Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9 udc

[gregkh]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 05:56:30AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 28/06/2023 à 23:10, Leo Li a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:40 PM
> >> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>; Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> >> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> >> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> >> ch9 udc
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 28/06/2023 à 19:04, Leo Li a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
> >>>> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
> >>>> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
> >>>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Ma Ke
> >>>> <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> >>>> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> >>>> ch9 udc
> >>>>
> >>>> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
> >>>> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
> >>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >>>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >>>> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >>>> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
> >>>> request_type, u16 value,
> >>>>    	} else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
> >>>> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
> >>>>    		/* Get endpoint status */
> >>>>    		int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> >>>> +		if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
> >>>> +			goto stall;
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.  This seems to be the right thing to do.  But normally we don't mix
> >> declarations with code within a code block.  Could we re-arrange the code a
> >> little bit so declarations stay on top?
> >>
> >> But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?
> > 
> > But they were at the beginning of a { } block which is compliant with the C89 standard.  I know gcc is more relaxed from this.  But it is probably still good to stick to the standard?
> 
> Sorry I misread the patch and failed to see that the declaration block 
> was continuing after the change.
> 
> So yes don't interleave code with declarations. Leave declaration at the 
> top of a block with a blank line between declarations and code.

This is fine as-is, no need to change anything.

greg k-h

RE: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9 udc

[Leo Li]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 3:41 AM
> To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
> Cc: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>; Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>; linux-
> usb@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> ch9 udc
> 
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 05:56:30AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 28/06/2023 à 23:10, Leo Li a écrit :
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:40 PM
> > >> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>; Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> > >> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org;
> > >> linuxppc- dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint
> > >> index for
> > >> ch9 udc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Le 28/06/2023 à 19:04, Leo Li a écrit :
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
> > >>>> To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
> > >>>> Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org;
> > >>>> linuxppc- dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Ma
> > >>>> Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> > >>>> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> ch9 udc
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may
> > >>>> not manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>    drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
> > >>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> > >>>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> > >>>> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
> > >>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> > >>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> > >>>> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc
> > >>>> *udc, u8 request_type, u16 value,
> > >>>>    	} else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
> > >>>> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
> > >>>>    		/* Get endpoint status */
> > >>>>    		int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> > >>>> +		if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
> > >>>> +			goto stall;
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks.  This seems to be the right thing to do.  But normally we
> > >>> don't mix
> > >> declarations with code within a code block.  Could we re-arrange
> > >> the code a little bit so declarations stay on top?
> > >>
> > >> But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?
> > >
> > > But they were at the beginning of a { } block which is compliant with the
> C89 standard.  I know gcc is more relaxed from this.  But it is probably still
> good to stick to the standard?
> >
> > Sorry I misread the patch and failed to see that the declaration block
> > was continuing after the change.
> >
> > So yes don't interleave code with declarations. Leave declaration at
> > the top of a block with a blank line between declarations and code.
> 
> This is fine as-is, no need to change anything.

With the approval from Greg, I have no objection to the patch.

Acked-by: Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com>

Regards,
Leo