Re: [PATCH next] nvdimm: Prevent integer overflow in ramdax_get_config_data()

Dan Carpenter
2025-11-25T18:59:34Z

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:38:29AM -0600, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "cmd->in_offset" variable comes from the user via the __nd_ioctl()
> > function. The problem is that the "cmd->in_offset + cmd->in_length"
> > addition could have an integer wrapping issue if cmd->in_offset is close
> > to UINT_MAX . The "cmd->in_length" variable has been capped, but the
> > "cmd->in_offset" variable has not. Both of these variables are type u32.
>
> Does ramdax_set_config_data() also need this?

Yes. It does. These are from Smatch warnings, right. They take a few
rebuilds for the taint information to propagate from the ioctl to the
ramdax_get_config_data() function. When I rebuilt it, then it propagates
to both so I would have seen the ramdax_set_config_data() tomorrow.

But they're called from the same function so the taint data should
have propagated to both at the same time... WTF? I don't know what
happened. Anyway, I will fix that and resend.

Thanks for noticing.

> I'm not quite following where in_length is capped so I'm inclined to
> add size_add in both set and get.

I meant that the if (struct_size(cmd, in_buf, cmd->in_length) > buf_len)
line checks that cmd->in_length is okay.

regards,
dan carpenter