linux-kernel - AW: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: fix potential integer overflow on shift of a int

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: <3aed86cfb8014badbcbc4ee9f007976d@bfs.de>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:05:01 +0000
From:   Walter Harms <wharms@....de>
To:     Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        "David Airlie" <airlied@...ux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
        Junwei Zhang <Jerry.Zhang@....com>,
        "amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
CC:     "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: AW: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: fix potential integer overflow on shift of a
 int

i am curious:
what is the win to have a unsigned 64 bit integer in the first
place ?

re,
 wh
________________________________________
Von: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Gesendet: Montag, 8. Februar 2021 10:17:42
An: Colin King; Alex Deucher; David Airlie; Daniel Vetter; Huang Rui; Junwei Zhang; amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: fix potential integer overflow on shift of a int

Am 08.02.21 um 00:07 schrieb Colin King:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>
> The left shift of int 32 bit integer constant 1 is evaluated using 32
> bit arithmetic and then assigned to an unsigned 64 bit integer. In the
> case where *frag is 32 or more this can lead to an oveflow.  Avoid this
> by shifting 1ULL.

Well that can't happen. Take a look at the code in that function:

>                 max_frag = 31;
...
>         if (*frag >= max_frag) {
>                 *frag = max_frag;
>                 *frag_end = end & ~((1ULL << max_frag) - 1);
>         } else {
>                 *frag_end = start + (1 << *frag);
>         }

But I'm fine with applying the patch if it silences your warning.

Regards,
Christian.

>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unintentional integer overflow")
> Fixes: dfcd99f6273e ("drm/amdgpu: meld together VM fragment and huge page handling")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> index 9d19078246c8..53a925600510 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> @@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@ static void amdgpu_vm_fragment(struct amdgpu_vm_update_params *params,
>               *frag = max_frag;
>               *frag_end = end & ~((1ULL << max_frag) - 1);
>       } else {
> -             *frag_end = start + (1 << *frag);
> +             *frag_end = start + (1ULL << *frag);
>       }
>   }
>