linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] PCI: generic: Correct, and avoid overflow, in bus

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <55F86764.4060502@caviumnetworks.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:45:56 -0700
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] PCI: generic: Correct, and avoid overflow, in bus_max
 calculation.

On 09/15/2015 11:35 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 07:02:54PM +0100, David Daney wrote:
>> On 09/15/2015 10:49 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:21:57AM +0100, David Daney wrote:
>>>>    	/* Limit the bus-range to fit within reg */
>>>> -	bus_max = pci->cfg.bus_range->start +
>>>> -		  (resource_size(&pci->cfg.res) >> pci->cfg.ops.bus_shift) - 1;
>>>> +	bus_max = (resource_size(&pci->cfg.res) >> pci->cfg.ops.bus_shift) - 1;
>>>> +	if (bus_max > 255)
>>>> +		bus_max = 255;
>>>>    	pci->cfg.bus_range->end = min_t(resource_size_t,
>>>>    					pci->cfg.bus_range->end, bus_max);
>>>
>>> Hmm, this is changing the meaning of the bus-range property in the
>>> device-tree, which really needs to match what IEEE Std 1275-1994 requires.
>>
>> I doesn't change the bus-range.
>
> Not directly, but pci->cfg.bus_range is a resource populated from the
> "bus-range" property in the device-tree, so it's changing how the driver
> uses that property.
>
>>> My understanding was that the bus-range could be used to offset the config
>>> space, which is why it's subtracted from the bus number in
>>> gen_pci_map_cfg_bus_[e]cam.
>>
>> There is an inconsistency in the current code.  The calculation of the
>> cfg.win[?] pointers is done such that the beginning of the config space
>> specified in the "reg" property corresponds to bus 0.
>
> I don't follow you here. The mapping functions explicitly subtract the
> start of the bus range when calculating the window offset:
>
>    resource_size_t idx = bus->number - pci->cfg.bus_range->start;
>
> so if I have bus-range = <128 255>; then bus 128 lives at the start of
> the configuration space described by the reg property, not bus 0.
>
> Sorry if I'm being thick; I just can't see the inconsistency.
>

Here is the current code:

>> 	bus_range = pci->cfg.bus_range;
>> 	for (busn = bus_range->start; busn <= bus_range->end; ++busn) {
>> 		u32 idx = busn - bus_range->start;

The index is offset by the bus range start...

>> 		u32 sz = 1 << pci->cfg.ops.bus_shift;
>>
>> 		pci->cfg.win[idx] = devm_ioremap(dev,
>> 						 pci->cfg.res.start + busn * sz,
>> 						 sz);

But, the offset into the "reg" property is the raw bus number.


>> 		if (!pci->cfg.win[idx])
>> 			return -ENOMEM;
>> 	}


I hope that makes it more clear.




>> The calculation that I am changing, was done such that the beginning of
>> the config space specified in the "reg" property corresponds to the
>> first bus of the "bus-range"
>>
>> Which is correct?  I assumed that the config space specified in the
>> "reg" property corresponds to bus 0.  Based on this assumption, I made
>> the bus_max calculation match.
>>
>> Due to hardware peculiarities, our bus-range starts at a non-zero bus
>> number.  So, something has to be done to make all the code agree on a
>> single interpretation of the meaning "reg" property.
>
> I think you're the first to exercise this code, so it's definitely worth
> us fixing whatever's going wrong.
>
>>> Also, why is your config space so large that
>>> we end up overflowing bus_max?
>>
>> It isn't.  The part of the patch that changes the type from u8 to int
>> was just to add some sanity.  The  code was easily susceptible to
>> overflow failures, it seemed best to change to int.
>
> Can we drop this part for now if it's not actually needed?
>
> Will
>

--
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/