linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] lib/scatterlist: Avoid potential scatterlist entry overflow

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: <CAHp75Vdo_EPSxA2gd=R1Erp1x6=P1tLpoWxrRE4LEuFUobUPmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:59:42 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>
Cc:     Intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...el.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib/scatterlist: Avoid potential scatterlist entry overflow

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net> wrote:
> Since the scatterlist length field is an unsigned int, make
> sure that sg_alloc_table_from_pages does not overflow it while
> coallescing pages to a single entry.


>  /*
> + * Since the above length field is an unsigned int, below we define the maximum
> + * lenght in bytes that can be stored in one scatterlist entry.

length

> + */
> +#define SCATTERLIST_MAX_SEGMENT (0xfffff000)

Shouldn't be calculated from PAGE_SIZE (PAGE bits, etc)?

> --- a/lib/scatterlist.c
> +++ b/lib/scatterlist.c

> @@ -402,9 +403,16 @@ int sg_alloc_table_from_pages(struct sg_table *sgt,
>
>         /* compute number of contiguous chunks */
>         chunks = 1;
> -       for (i = 1; i < n_pages; ++i)
> -               if (page_to_pfn(pages[i]) != page_to_pfn(pages[i - 1]) + 1)
> +       seg_len = PAGE_SIZE;
> +       for (i = 1; i < n_pages; ++i) {
> +               if (seg_len >= max_segment ||
> +                   page_to_pfn(pages[i]) != page_to_pfn(pages[i - 1]) + 1) {
>                         ++chunks;
> +                       seg_len = PAGE_SIZE;
> +               } else {
> +                       seg_len += PAGE_SIZE;
> +               }
> +       }

Wouldn't be following looks more readable?

seg_len = 0;
// Are compilers so stupid doing calculation per iteration in for-conditional?
// for (i = 0; i + 1 < n_pages; i++) ?
for (i = 1; i < n_pages; ++i) {
  seg_len += PAGE_SIZE;
  if (seg_len >= max_segment || page_to_pfn(pages[i]) !=
page_to_pfn(pages[i - 1]) + 1) {
    ++chunks;
    seg_len = PAGE_SIZE;
  }
}

Perhaps while() or do-while() will increase readability even more, but
I didn't check.

>                 /* look for the end of the current chunk */
> +               seg_len = PAGE_SIZE;
>                 for (j = cur_page + 1; j < n_pages; ++j)
> -                       if (page_to_pfn(pages[j]) !=
> +                       if (seg_len >= max_segment ||
> +                           page_to_pfn(pages[j]) !=
>                             page_to_pfn(pages[j - 1]) + 1)
>                                 break;
> +                       else
> +                               seg_len += PAGE_SIZE;

Something similar here (didn't you get warning from checkpath about
curly braces?).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko