[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1333723480_272185@CP5-2952>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:44:07 +0100
From: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
Cc: Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: fix integer overflow in i915_gem_execbuffer2()
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 10:01:36 -0400, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:46:46 -0400, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 6, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:58:18 -0400, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>> A large args->buffer_count from userspace may overflow the allocation
> >>>> size, leading to out-of-bounds access.
> >>>>
> >>>> Use kmalloc_array() to avoid that.
> >>>
> >>> I can safely say that exec list larger than 4GiB is going to be an
> >>> illegal operation and would rather the ioctl failed outright with
> >>> EINVAL.
> >>
> >> On 32-bit platform?
> >
> > On any platform. The largest it can legally be is a few tens of megabytes.
>
> IDGI. First we come to i915_gem_execbuffer2() from ioctl:
>
> exec2_list = kmalloc(sizeof(*exec2_list)*args->buffer_count, ...);
>
> args->buffer_count is passed from userspace so it can be any value.
That I agreed with, I just disagree with how you chose to handle it.
Rather than continue on and attempt to vmalloc a large array we should
just fail the ioctl with EINVAL.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
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