[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zgh/+xSyOil37H1F@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:11:23 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>
Cc: 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>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/amd/uncore: Use kcalloc*() instead of
kzalloc*()
* Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com> wrote:
> 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;
This change is nonsense, kzalloc() is a perfectly usable interface, and
none of the arguments are user-controlled, so I don't see how there
could be a real overflow bug here.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists