linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] platform: vivid-cec: fix potential integer overflow in vivid_cec_pin_adap

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: <20180130055704.Horde.TShCAmNQrhFDVoYhY3jkBgi@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 05:57:04 -0600
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] platform: vivid-cec: fix potential integer overflow
 in vivid_cec_pin_adap_events


Quoting Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>:

> On 01/30/18 12:43, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> What happens if you do: ((u64)CEC_TIM_START_BIT_TOTAL +
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that forces everything else in the expression to be evaluated
>>>>> as u64.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, in this case the operator precedence takes place and the
>>>> expression len * 10 * CEC_TIM_DATA_BIT_TOTAL is computed first. So the
>>>> issue remains the same.
>>>>
>>>> I can switch the expressions as follows:
>>>>
>>>> (u64)len * 10 * CEC_TIM_DATA_BIT_TOTAL + CEC_TIM_START_BIT_TOTAL
>>>
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> 10ULL * len * ...
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I like it.
>>
>>>>
>>>> and avoid the cast in the middle.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> My problem is that (u64)len suggests that there is some problem with len
>>> specifically, which isn't true.
>>>
>>
>> That's a good point. Actually, I think the same applies for the rest
>> of the patch series. Maybe it is a good idea to send a v2 of the whole
>> patchset with that update.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> It definitely needs a comment that this fixes a bogus Coverity report.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I actually added the following line to the message changelog:
>>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1454996 ("Unintentional integer overflow")
>>>
>>> That needs to be in the source, otherwise someone will remove the
>>> cast (or ULL) at some time in the future since it isn't clear why
>>> it is done. And nobody reads commit logs from X years back :-)
>>>
>>
>> You're right. I thought you were talking about the changelog.
>>
>> And unless you think otherwise, I think there is no need for any
>> additional code comment if the update you suggest is applied:
>>
>> len * 10ULL * CEC_TIM_DATA_BIT_TOTAL
>
> I still think I'd like to see a comment. It is still not obvious why
> you would want to use ULL here.
>

OK. That's fine.

> Please use "10ULL * len", it's actually a bit better to have it in
> that order (it's 10 bits per character, so '10 * len' is a more logical
> order).
>

OK. I got it.

Thanks for all the feedback, Hans.
--
Gustavo