[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0z72S6mY7Q7RBJ_EMCbF9DOi+RdVaUEsB_qo+rGurQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:25 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: hypercall: fix out-of-bounds memcpy
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> From: Boris Ostrovsky
>> Sent: 02 February 2018 23:34
> ...
>> > switch (cmd) {
>> > + case EVTCHNOP_bind_interdomain:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_bind_interdomain);
>> > + break;
>> > + case EVTCHNOP_bind_virq:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_bind_virq);
>> > + break;
>> > + case EVTCHNOP_bind_pirq:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_bind_pirq);
>> > + break;
>> > case EVTCHNOP_close:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_close);
>> > + break;
>> > case EVTCHNOP_send:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_send);
>> > + break;
>> > + case EVTCHNOP_alloc_unbound:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_alloc_unbound);
>> > + break;
>> > + case EVTCHNOP_bind_ipi:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_bind_ipi);
>> > + break;
>> > + case EVTCHNOP_status:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_status);
>> > + break;
>> > case EVTCHNOP_bind_vcpu:
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_bind_vcpu);
>> > + break;
>> > case EVTCHNOP_unmask:
>> > - /* no output */
>> > + len = sizeof(struct evtchn_unmask);
>> > break;
>
> Are the EVTCHNOP_xxx values dense?
> In which case an array is almost certainly better than the switch statement.
They are, yes. PHYSDEVOP_xxx are also consecutive by start at '4'.
Dan made the same comment earlier, and I replied that my I had
considered it but went for the more failsafe route. I also verified my
assumption now that gcc in fact is smart enough to turn this
into a table by itself:
xen_physdev_op_compat:
pushq %r13 #
leal -4(%rdi), %eax #, _2
pushq %r12 #
pushq %rbp #
pushq %rbx #
subq $24, %rsp #,
# /git/arm-soc/drivers/xen/fallback.c:59: struct physdev_op op =
{ .cmd = cmd, };
movq $0, 4(%rsp) #, MEM[(struct physdev_op *)&op + 4B]
movq $0, 12(%rsp) #, MEM[(struct physdev_op *)&op + 4B]
movl $0, 20(%rsp) #, MEM[(struct physdev_op *)&op + 4B]
movl %edi, (%rsp) # cmd, op.cmd
cmpl $6, %eax #, _2
ja .L8 #,
movl %eax, %edi # _2, _2
# /git/arm-soc/drivers/xen/fallback.c:87: memcpy(&op.u, arg, len);
leaq 8(%rsp), %r12 #, tmp98
movq %rsi, %rbx # arg, arg
movq CSWTCH.17(,%rdi,8), %r13 # CSWTCH.17, _5
movq %r12, %rdi # tmp98,
movq %r13, %rdx # _5,
call __memcpy #
# /git/arm-soc/drivers/xen/fallback.c:88: rc = _hypercall1(int,
physdev_op_compat, &op);
movq %rsp, %rdi #, __arg1
#APP
# 88 "/git/arm-soc/drivers/xen/fallback.c" 1
call hypercall_page+608 #
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists