[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<AS8PR02MB7237A07D73D6D15EBF72FD8D8B392@AS8PR02MB7237.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:46:59 +0100
From: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>,
x86@...nel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/amd/uncore: Use kcalloc*() instead of kzalloc*()
As noted in the "Deprecated Interfaces, Language Features, Attributes,
and Conventions" documentation [1], size calculations (especially
multiplication) should not be performed in memory allocator (or similar)
function arguments due to the risk of them overflowing. This could lead
to values wrapping around and a smaller allocation being made than the
caller was expecting. Using those allocations could lead to linear
overflows of heap memory and other misbehaviors.
So, use the purpose specific kcalloc*() function instead of the argument
size * count in the kzalloc*() function.
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/deprecated.html#open-coded-arithmetic-in-allocator-arguments
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/162
Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add the "Reviewed-by:" tag.
- Rebase against linux-next.
Previous versions:
v1 -> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/20240116125813.3754-1-erick.archer@gmx.com/
Hi everyone,
This patch seems to be lost. Gustavo reviewed it on January 16, 2024
but the patch has not been applied since.
Thanks,
Erick
---
arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
index 4ccb8fa483e6..61c0a2114183 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
@@ -479,8 +479,8 @@ static int amd_uncore_ctx_init(struct amd_uncore *uncore, unsigned int cpu)
goto fail;
curr->cpu = cpu;
- curr->events = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*curr->events) *
- pmu->num_counters,
+ curr->events = kcalloc_node(pmu->num_counters,
+ sizeof(*curr->events),
GFP_KERNEL, node);
if (!curr->events) {
kfree(curr);
@@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ int amd_uncore_umc_ctx_init(struct amd_uncore *uncore, unsigned int cpu)
uncore->num_pmus += group_num_pmus[gid];
}
- uncore->pmus = kzalloc(sizeof(*uncore->pmus) * uncore->num_pmus,
+ uncore->pmus = kcalloc(uncore->num_pmus, sizeof(*uncore->pmus),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!uncore->pmus) {
uncore->num_pmus = 0;
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists