[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1406191310330.16842@knanqh.ubzr>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:13:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
cc: Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in
early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> > The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> > of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> > the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> > be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> > being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> > range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> > phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
> >
> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>
> > ---
> > Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> > your bootup problem?
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> > const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> > base &= PAGE_MASK;
> > size &= PAGE_MASK;
> > +
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> > + if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
>
> How about removing the ifdef and doing something like:
>
> if ((base >> 32) && (sizeof(phys_addr_t) != sizeof(u64)))
That is what I was about to suggest as well. Except that I'd use
sizeof(phys_addr_t) < sizeof(u64) just in case.
Nicolas
--
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