[PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: mtk_scp: Fix bounds check in mt8183_scp_da_to_va()

[PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: mtk_scp: Fix bounds check in mt8183_scp_da_to_va()

[Atul Akella]

mt8183_scp_da_to_va() translates a device address to a pointer into
SCP SRAM or DRAM. Its bounds check is wrong in two ways:

- offset is an int but is assigned from a u64. For the DRAM window,
  da = dma_addr + 0x100000010 is truncated to offset 0x10 and passes
  the check. There is also no da >= dma_addr check, so a da below
  dma_addr wraps in the u64 subtraction and can truncate to a small
  positive offset.

- (offset + len) is computed in size_t and wraps for a large len.
  With offset = 0x100 and len = (size_t)-0x80, the sum is 0x80 and
  the check passes.

da and len come from the firmware's ELF program headers
(p_paddr/p_memsz) via rproc_da_to_va(), and the returned pointer is
then written to by the ELF loader, so a malformed firmware image can
make the loader write outside the intended region.

Use a u64 offset, check da >= dma_addr before subtracting, and
compare len against the remaining window size instead of adding it
to offset.

Fixes: 63c13d61eafe ("remoteproc/mediatek: add SCP support for mt8183")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Atul Akella <atul.akella@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
index 9751acc2bf83..d18ae676260a 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
@@ -754,17 +754,19 @@ static int scp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
 
 static void *mt8183_scp_da_to_va(struct mtk_scp *scp, u64 da, size_t len)
 {
-	int offset;
+	u64 offset;
 	const struct mtk_scp_sizes_data *scp_sizes;
 
 	scp_sizes = scp->data->scp_sizes;
 	if (da < scp->sram_size) {
 		offset = da;
-		if (offset >= 0 && (offset + len) <= scp->sram_size)
+		if (len <= scp->sram_size - offset)
 			return (void __force *)scp->sram_base + offset;
 	} else if (scp_sizes->max_dram_size) {
 		offset = da - scp->dma_addr;
-		if (offset >= 0 && (offset + len) <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size)
+		if (da >= scp->dma_addr &&
+		    offset <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size &&
+		    len <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size - offset)
 			return scp->cpu_addr + offset;
 	}
 
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: mtk_scp: Fix bounds check in mt8183_scp_da_to_va()

[Atul Akella]

mt8183_scp_da_to_va() translates a device address to a pointer into
SCP SRAM or DRAM. Its bounds check is wrong in two ways:

- offset is an int but is assigned from a u64. For the DRAM window,
  da = dma_addr + 0x100000010 is truncated to offset 0x10 and passes
  the check. There is also no da >= dma_addr check, so a da below
  dma_addr wraps in the u64 subtraction and can truncate to a small
  positive offset.

- (offset + len) is computed in size_t and wraps for a large len.
  With offset = 0x100 and len = (size_t)-0x80, the sum is 0x80 and
  the check passes.

da and len come from the firmware's ELF program headers
(p_paddr/p_memsz) via rproc_da_to_va(), and the returned pointer is
then written to by the ELF loader, so a malformed firmware image can
make the loader write outside the intended region.

Use a u64 offset, check da >= dma_addr before subtracting, and
compare len against the remaining window size instead of adding it
to offset.

Fixes: 63c13d61eafe ("remoteproc/mediatek: add SCP support for mt8183")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Atul Akella <atul.akella@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
index 9751acc2bf83..d18ae676260a 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
@@ -754,17 +754,19 @@ static int scp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
 
 static void *mt8183_scp_da_to_va(struct mtk_scp *scp, u64 da, size_t len)
 {
-	int offset;
+	u64 offset;
 	const struct mtk_scp_sizes_data *scp_sizes;
 
 	scp_sizes = scp->data->scp_sizes;
 	if (da < scp->sram_size) {
 		offset = da;
-		if (offset >= 0 && (offset + len) <= scp->sram_size)
+		if (len <= scp->sram_size - offset)
 			return (void __force *)scp->sram_base + offset;
 	} else if (scp_sizes->max_dram_size) {
 		offset = da - scp->dma_addr;
-		if (offset >= 0 && (offset + len) <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size)
+		if (da >= scp->dma_addr &&
+		    offset <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size &&
+		    len <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size - offset)
 			return scp->cpu_addr + offset;
 	}
 
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: mtk_scp: Fix bounds check in mt8192_scp_da_to_va()

[Atul Akella]

mt8192_scp_da_to_va() translates a device address to a pointer into
SCP SRAM, L1TCM or DRAM. Its bounds checks have two problems:

- (da + len) is computed in u64 and wraps for a large da or len.
  With da = 0xfffffffffffffff0 and len = 0x20, the sum is 0x10 and
  passes "<= base + size" while da >= base also holds.

- offset is an int but is assigned from a u64 difference, so it is
  truncated before being added to the region's base pointer.

da and len come from the firmware's ELF program headers
(p_paddr/p_memsz) via rproc_da_to_va(), and the returned pointer is
then written to by the ELF loader, so a malformed firmware image can
make the loader write outside the intended region.

Use a u64 offset and compare len against the remaining region size
instead of adding it to da. Apply this to the SRAM, L1TCM and DRAM
regions.

Fixes: ca23ecfdbd44 ("remoteproc/mediatek: support L1TCM")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Atul Akella <atul.akella@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
index d18ae676260a..b1d83265fc26 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
@@ -775,30 +775,30 @@ static void *mt8183_scp_da_to_va(struct mtk_scp *scp, u64 da, size_t len)
 
 static void *mt8192_scp_da_to_va(struct mtk_scp *scp, u64 da, size_t len)
 {
-	int offset;
+	u64 offset;
 	const struct mtk_scp_sizes_data *scp_sizes;
 
 	scp_sizes = scp->data->scp_sizes;
-	if (da >= scp->sram_phys &&
-	    (da + len) <= scp->sram_phys + scp->sram_size) {
+	if (da >= scp->sram_phys) {
 		offset = da - scp->sram_phys;
-		return (void __force *)scp->sram_base + offset;
+		if (offset <= scp->sram_size && len <= scp->sram_size - offset)
+			return (void __force *)scp->sram_base + offset;
 	}
 
 	/* optional memory region */
-	if (scp->cluster->l1tcm_size &&
-	    da >= scp->cluster->l1tcm_phys &&
-	    (da + len) <= scp->cluster->l1tcm_phys + scp->cluster->l1tcm_size) {
+	if (scp->cluster->l1tcm_size && da >= scp->cluster->l1tcm_phys) {
 		offset = da - scp->cluster->l1tcm_phys;
-		return (void __force *)scp->cluster->l1tcm_base + offset;
+		if (offset <= scp->cluster->l1tcm_size &&
+		    len <= scp->cluster->l1tcm_size - offset)
+			return (void __force *)scp->cluster->l1tcm_base + offset;
 	}
 
 	/* optional memory region */
-	if (scp_sizes->max_dram_size &&
-	    da >= scp->dma_addr &&
-	    (da + len) <= scp->dma_addr + scp_sizes->max_dram_size) {
+	if (scp_sizes->max_dram_size && da >= scp->dma_addr) {
 		offset = da - scp->dma_addr;
-		return scp->cpu_addr + offset;
+		if (offset <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size &&
+		    len <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size - offset)
+			return scp->cpu_addr + offset;
 	}
 
 	return NULL;
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: mtk_scp: Fix bounds check in mt8192_scp_da_to_va()

[Atul Akella]

mt8192_scp_da_to_va() translates a device address to a pointer into
SCP SRAM, L1TCM or DRAM. Its bounds checks have two problems:

- (da + len) is computed in u64 and wraps for a large da or len.
  With da = 0xfffffffffffffff0 and len = 0x20, the sum is 0x10 and
  passes "<= base + size" while da >= base also holds.

- offset is an int but is assigned from a u64 difference, so it is
  truncated before being added to the region's base pointer.

da and len come from the firmware's ELF program headers
(p_paddr/p_memsz) via rproc_da_to_va(), and the returned pointer is
then written to by the ELF loader, so a malformed firmware image can
make the loader write outside the intended region.

Use a u64 offset and compare len against the remaining region size
instead of adding it to da. Apply this to the SRAM, L1TCM and DRAM
regions.

Fixes: ca23ecfdbd44 ("remoteproc/mediatek: support L1TCM")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Atul Akella <atul.akella@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
index d18ae676260a..b1d83265fc26 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
@@ -775,30 +775,30 @@ static void *mt8183_scp_da_to_va(struct mtk_scp *scp, u64 da, size_t len)
 
 static void *mt8192_scp_da_to_va(struct mtk_scp *scp, u64 da, size_t len)
 {
-	int offset;
+	u64 offset;
 	const struct mtk_scp_sizes_data *scp_sizes;
 
 	scp_sizes = scp->data->scp_sizes;
-	if (da >= scp->sram_phys &&
-	    (da + len) <= scp->sram_phys + scp->sram_size) {
+	if (da >= scp->sram_phys) {
 		offset = da - scp->sram_phys;
-		return (void __force *)scp->sram_base + offset;
+		if (offset <= scp->sram_size && len <= scp->sram_size - offset)
+			return (void __force *)scp->sram_base + offset;
 	}
 
 	/* optional memory region */
-	if (scp->cluster->l1tcm_size &&
-	    da >= scp->cluster->l1tcm_phys &&
-	    (da + len) <= scp->cluster->l1tcm_phys + scp->cluster->l1tcm_size) {
+	if (scp->cluster->l1tcm_size && da >= scp->cluster->l1tcm_phys) {
 		offset = da - scp->cluster->l1tcm_phys;
-		return (void __force *)scp->cluster->l1tcm_base + offset;
+		if (offset <= scp->cluster->l1tcm_size &&
+		    len <= scp->cluster->l1tcm_size - offset)
+			return (void __force *)scp->cluster->l1tcm_base + offset;
 	}
 
 	/* optional memory region */
-	if (scp_sizes->max_dram_size &&
-	    da >= scp->dma_addr &&
-	    (da + len) <= scp->dma_addr + scp_sizes->max_dram_size) {
+	if (scp_sizes->max_dram_size && da >= scp->dma_addr) {
 		offset = da - scp->dma_addr;
-		return scp->cpu_addr + offset;
+		if (offset <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size &&
+		    len <= scp_sizes->max_dram_size - offset)
+			return scp->cpu_addr + offset;
 	}
 
 	return NULL;
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 0/2] remoteproc: mtk_scp: fix da_to_va() bounds checks

[Atul Akella]

Hi,

Just following up on this series. Both patches are compile-tested only (arm64 defconfig, W=1).
I haven't tested them on actual mt8183/mt8192 hardware, but I'd be happy to help with hardware testing if someone has access to a suitable board. I'm also open to addressing any review feedback.

Thanks,
Atul

Re: [PATCH 0/2] remoteproc: mtk_scp: fix da_to_va() bounds checks

[Mathieu Poirier]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 08:49:38PM +0530, Atul Akella wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just following up on this series. Both patches are compile-tested only (arm64 defconfig, W=1).
> I haven't tested them on actual mt8183/mt8192 hardware, but I'd be happy to help with hardware testing if someone has access to a suitable board. I'm also open to addressing any review feedback.
>

That patchset did not show up on my radar because it did not include the people
listed by "get_maintainer.pl".  Please resend with the correct recipient list.
 
> Thanks,
> Atul

Re: [PATCH 0/2] remoteproc: mtk_scp: fix da_to_va() bounds checks

[Mathieu Poirier]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 08:48:52AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 08:49:38PM +0530, Atul Akella wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Just following up on this series. Both patches are compile-tested only (arm64 defconfig, W=1).
> > I haven't tested them on actual mt8183/mt8192 hardware, but I'd be happy to help with hardware testing if someone has access to a suitable board. I'm also open to addressing any review feedback.
> >
> 
> That patchset did not show up on my radar because it did not include the people
> listed by "get_maintainer.pl".  Please resend with the correct recipient list.

I just noticed that individual patches had the right recipients but not the
cover letter.  Next time, please use the same recipient list for the cover
letter.  I will add your work to my review queue.

>  
> > Thanks,
> > Atul