Re: [PATCH] kexec: avoid out of bounds in crash_exclude_mem_range()

[Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>]

On 11/27/23 at 10:56am, fuqiang wang wrote:
> When the split happened, judge whether mem->nr_ranges is equal to
> mem->max_nr_ranges. If it is true, return -ENOMEM.
> 
> The advantage of doing this is that it can avoid array bounds caused by
> some bugs. E.g., Before commit 4831be702b95 ("arm64/kexec: Fix missing
> extra range for crashkres_low."), reserve both high and low memories for
> the crashkernel may cause out of bounds.
> 
> On the other hand, move this code before the split to ensure that the
> array will not be changed when return error.

If out of array boundary is caused, means the laoding failed, whether
the out of boundary happened or not. I don't see how this code change
makes sense. Do I miss anything?

Thanks
Baoquan

> 
> Signed-off-by: fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang@easystack.cn>
> ---
>  kernel/crash_core.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
> index efe87d501c8c..ffdc246cf425 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
> @@ -611,6 +611,9 @@ int crash_exclude_mem_range(struct crash_mem *mem,
>  		}
>  
>  		if (p_start > start && p_end < end) {
> +			/* Split happened */
> +			if (mem->nr_ranges == mem->max_nr_ranges)
> +				return -ENOMEM;
>  			/* Split original range */
>  			mem->ranges[i].end = p_start - 1;
>  			temp_range.start = p_end + 1;
> @@ -626,9 +629,6 @@ int crash_exclude_mem_range(struct crash_mem *mem,
>  	if (!temp_range.end)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	/* Split happened */
> -	if (i == mem->max_nr_ranges - 1)
> -		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	/* Location where new range should go */
>  	j = i + 1;
> -- 
> 2.42.0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kexec mailing list
> kexec@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
>