[ 28/49] drm/i915: bounds check execbuffer relocation count

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

3.0-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

commit 3118a4f652c7b12c752f3222af0447008f9b2368 upstream.

It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate the buffer for
relocation copies. This could lead to heap writing overflows.

CVE-2013-0913

v3: collapse test, improve comment
v2: move check into validate_exec_list

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Reported-by: Pinkie Pie
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c |   11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -888,15 +888,20 @@ validate_exec_list(struct drm_i915_gem_e
 		   int count)
 {
 	int i;
+	int relocs_total = 0;
+	int relocs_max = INT_MAX / sizeof(struct drm_i915_gem_relocation_entry);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
 		char __user *ptr = (char __user *)(uintptr_t)exec[i].relocs_ptr;
 		int length; /* limited by fault_in_pages_readable() */
 
-		/* First check for malicious input causing overflow */
-		if (exec[i].relocation_count >
-		    INT_MAX / sizeof(struct drm_i915_gem_relocation_entry))
+		/* First check for malicious input causing overflow in
+		 * the worst case where we need to allocate the entire
+		 * relocation tree as a single array.
+		 */
+		if (exec[i].relocation_count > relocs_max - relocs_total)
 			return -EINVAL;
+		relocs_total += exec[i].relocation_count;
 
 		length = exec[i].relocation_count *
 			sizeof(struct drm_i915_gem_relocation_entry);