linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] iommu/iova: fix incorrect variable types

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: <58D48401.10009@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:27:13 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Sudeep Dutt <sudeep.dutt@...el.com>,
        Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
CC:     Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
        "Tianhong Ding" <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] iommu/iova: fix incorrect variable types



On 2017/3/23 19:42, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 22/03/17 06:27, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> Keep these four variables type consistent with the paramters of function
>> __alloc_and_insert_iova_range and the members of struct iova:
>>
>> 1. static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad,
>> 		unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn,
>>
>> 2. struct iova {
>> 	unsigned long	pfn_hi;
>> 	unsigned long	pfn_lo;
>>
>> In fact, limit_pfn is most likely larger than 32 bits on DMA64.
> 
> FWIW if pad_size manages to overflow an int something's probably gone
> horribly wrong, but there's no harm in making it consistent with
> everything else here. However, given that patch #6 makes this irrelevant
> anyway, do we really need to bother?

Because I'm not sure whether patch #6 can be applied or not.

> 
> Robin.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/iommu/iova.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> index b7268a1..8ba8b496 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c
>> @@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ __cached_rbnode_delete_update(struct iova_domain *iovad, struct iova *free)
>>   * Computes the padding size required, to make the start address
>>   * naturally aligned on the power-of-two order of its size
>>   */
>> -static unsigned int
>> -iova_get_pad_size(unsigned int size, unsigned int limit_pfn)
>> +static unsigned long
>> +iova_get_pad_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long limit_pfn)
>>  {
>>  	return (limit_pfn + 1 - size) & (__roundup_pow_of_two(size) - 1);
>>  }
>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static int __alloc_and_insert_iova_range(struct iova_domain *iovad,
>>  	struct rb_node *prev, *curr = NULL;
>>  	unsigned long flags;
>>  	unsigned long saved_pfn;
>> -	unsigned int pad_size = 0;
>> +	unsigned long pad_size = 0;
>>  
>>  	/* Walk the tree backwards */
>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&iovad->iova_rbtree_lock, flags);
>>
> 
> 
> .
> 

-- 
Thanks!
BestRegards