Re: [PATCH 2/4] hw/misc/bcm2835_property: Avoid overflow in OTP access properties

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>]

Hi Peter,

On 23/7/24 15:10, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Coverity points out that in our handling of the property
> RPI_FWREQ_SET_CUSTOMER_OTP we have a potential overflow.  This
> happens because we read start_num and number from the guest as
> unsigned 32 bit integers, but then the variable 'n' we use as a loop
> counter as we iterate from start_num to start_num + number is only an
> "int".  That means that if the guest passes us a very large start_num
> we will interpret it as negative.  This will result in an assertion
> failure inside bcm2835_otp_set_row(), which checks that we didn't
> pass it an invalid row number.
> 
> A similar issue applies to all the properties for accessing OTP rows
> where we are iterating through with a start and length read from the
> guest.
> 
> Use uint32_t for the loop counter to avoid this problem. Because in
> all cases 'n' is only used as a loop counter, we can do this as
> part of the for(), restricting its scope to exactly where we need it.
> 
> Resolves: Coverity CID 1549401
> Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>

> ---
>   hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c | 9 ++++-----
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c b/hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c
> index e28fdca9846..7eb623b4e90 100644
> --- a/hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c
> +++ b/hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@ static void bcm2835_property_mbox_push(BCM2835PropertyState *s, uint32_t value)
>       uint32_t tot_len;
>       size_t resplen;
>       uint32_t tmp;
> -    int n;
>       uint32_t start_num, number, otp_row;
>   
>       /*
> @@ -337,7 +336,7 @@ static void bcm2835_property_mbox_push(BCM2835PropertyState *s, uint32_t value)
>   
>               resplen = 8 + 4 * number;
>   
> -            for (n = start_num; n < start_num + number &&
> +            for (uint32_t n = start_num; n < start_num + number &&
>                    n < BCM2835_OTP_CUSTOMER_OTP_LEN; n++) {

I find not making the counter size explicit and use 'unsigned'
simpler, since using 32-bit in particular doesn't bring much here.
Is there a reason I'm missing?

Thanks,

Phil.