[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adar5nj9aae.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:22:33 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Cc: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bug list: range checking issues 2.6.34-rc1
> > drivers/infiniband/core/user_mad.c +646 ib_umad_reg_agent() 'umm' 4 <= 6
> 641 u32 *umm = (u32 *) ureq.method_mask;
> 642 int i;
> 643
> 644 for (i = 0; i < BITS_TO_LONGS(IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS); ++i)
> 645 req.method_mask[i] =
> 646 umm[i * 2] | ((u64) umm[i * 2 + 1] << 32);
> "umm" points to a array with 4 elements.
> i can be 0 to 3, so "i * 2" goes up to 6
> And 4 <= 6 so it's a problem.
> Smatch also complained about "i * 2 + 1" but I didn't include that.
It's a bit tricky, but I believe this is a false positive. The code in
question is compatibility handling for 32-bit userspace on a 64-bit
kernel. In that case the range of i will be 0 to 1 (IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS
is 128, so BITS_TO_LONGS on that is 2), and so we will only access
elements 0, 1, 2, and 3 of umm[], which is OK.
(Not sure how easily a static checker could find this; the code in
question is guarded by test of compat_method_mask, which can only be 1
if ib_umad_reg_agent() is called from ib_umad_compat_ioctl(), which will
only be built with CONFIG_COMPAT set, which can only happen on a 64-bit
architecture -- but it seems a bit hard for a checker to follow all that)
--
Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists