From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
To: Chunkai Deng <chunkai.deng@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chris.lew@oss.qualcomm.com,
tony.truong@oss.qualcomm.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rpmsg: glink: smem: Add WARN_ON_ONCE for FIFO index invariants
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 22:11:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alWlzzi7uxbSkw8c@baldur> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260617-rpmsg-improvements-v2-2-477d4eb569dc@oss.qualcomm.com>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 07:07:14PM +0800, Chunkai Deng wrote:
> The FIFO read/write helpers assume the head and tail indices stay within
> [0, pipe->native.length) and use them directly as offsets into the
> mapped FIFO region. If that invariant is ever broken, the subsequent
> memcpy or memcpy_fromio would access memory outside the FIFO.
>
> Add WARN_ON_ONCE checks in these helpers so a broken invariant is
> caught and reported once, and the out-of-bounds access is skipped
> instead of proceeding silently.
>
> Fixes: caf989c350e8 ("rpmsg: glink: Introduce glink smem based transport")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Chunkai Deng <chunkai.deng@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c b/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c
> index edab912557ac..42ad315d7910 100644
> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c
> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c
> @@ -86,9 +86,14 @@ static size_t glink_smem_rx_avail(struct qcom_glink_pipe *np)
> tail = le32_to_cpu(*pipe->tail);
>
> if (head < tail)
> - return pipe->native.length - tail + head;
> + len = pipe->native.length - tail + head;
> else
> - return head - tail;
> + len = head - tail;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(len > pipe->native.length))
> + len = 0;
> +
> + return len;
Looks good.
> }
>
> static void glink_smem_rx_peek(struct qcom_glink_pipe *np,
> @@ -103,6 +108,9 @@ static void glink_smem_rx_peek(struct qcom_glink_pipe *np,
> if (tail >= pipe->native.length)
> tail -= pipe->native.length;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tail >= pipe->native.length))
> + return;
> +
Wouldn't it be preferable to check the original "tail", before the
addition and subtraction?
Perhaps also validate that `offset + count < pipe->native.length`?
> len = min_t(size_t, count, pipe->native.length - tail);
> if (len)
> memcpy_fromio(data, pipe->fifo + tail, len);
> @@ -141,6 +149,9 @@ static size_t glink_smem_tx_avail(struct qcom_glink_pipe *np)
> else
> avail = tail - head;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(avail > pipe->native.length))
> + avail = 0;
`head - tail < length` does not guarantee that head and tail are valid
offsets within the fifo, so I think you should check both of them
instead of the difference.
> +
> if (avail < (FIFO_FULL_RESERVE + TX_BLOCKED_CMD_RESERVE))
> avail = 0;
> else
> @@ -155,6 +166,9 @@ static unsigned int glink_smem_tx_write_one(struct glink_smem_pipe *pipe,
> {
> size_t len;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(head >= pipe->native.length))
> + return head;
This makes glink_smem_tx_write_one() do nothing, twice. But then we
return to glink_smem_tx_write() which will adjust and update pipe->head;
possible subtract head into the valid range.
I think it would be better to move this check up to
glink_smem_tx_write().
And also check that `hlen + dlen < pipe->native.length`?
Regards,
Bjorn
> +
> len = min_t(size_t, count, pipe->native.length - head);
> if (len)
> memcpy(pipe->fifo + head, data, len);
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-14 3:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-17 11:07 [PATCH v2 0/2] rpmsg: glink: smem: robustness and debuggability fixes Chunkai Deng
2026-06-17 11:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] rpmsg: glink: smem: Use device name as IRQ name Chunkai Deng
2026-06-17 11:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] rpmsg: glink: smem: Add WARN_ON_ONCE for FIFO index invariants Chunkai Deng
2026-07-14 3:11 ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
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=alWlzzi7uxbSkw8c@baldur \
--to=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=chris.lew@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=chunkai.deng@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.truong@oss.qualcomm.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