[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210713113114.GL1954@kadam>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 14:31:14 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>
Cc: mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com,
sgarzare@...hat.com, parav@...dia.com, hch@...radead.org,
christian.brauner@...onical.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
willy@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, axboe@...nel.dk,
bcrl@...ck.org, corbet@....net, mika.penttila@...tfour.com,
joro@...tes.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, zhe.he@...driver.com,
xiaodong.liu@...el.com, songmuchun@...edance.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 13/17] vdpa: factor out vhost_vdpa_pa_map() and
vhost_vdpa_pa_unmap()
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:46:52PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> @@ -613,37 +618,28 @@ static void vhost_vdpa_unmap(struct vhost_vdpa *v, u64 iova, u64 size)
> }
> }
>
> -static int vhost_vdpa_process_iotlb_update(struct vhost_vdpa *v,
> - struct vhost_iotlb_msg *msg)
> +static int vhost_vdpa_pa_map(struct vhost_vdpa *v,
> + u64 iova, u64 size, u64 uaddr, u32 perm)
> {
> struct vhost_dev *dev = &v->vdev;
> - struct vhost_iotlb *iotlb = dev->iotlb;
> struct page **page_list;
> unsigned long list_size = PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(struct page *);
> unsigned int gup_flags = FOLL_LONGTERM;
> unsigned long npages, cur_base, map_pfn, last_pfn = 0;
> unsigned long lock_limit, sz2pin, nchunks, i;
> - u64 iova = msg->iova;
> + u64 start = iova;
> long pinned;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - if (msg->iova < v->range.first ||
> - msg->iova + msg->size - 1 > v->range.last)
> - return -EINVAL;
This is not related to your patch, but can the "msg->iova + msg->size"
addition can have an integer overflow. From looking at the callers it
seems like it can. msg comes from:
vhost_chr_write_iter()
--> dev->msg_handler(dev, &msg);
--> vhost_vdpa_process_iotlb_msg()
--> vhost_vdpa_process_iotlb_update()
If I'm thinking of the right thing then these are allowed to overflow to
0 because of the " - 1" but not further than that. I believe the check
needs to be something like:
if (msg->iova < v->range.first ||
msg->iova - 1 > U64_MAX - msg->size ||
msg->iova + msg->size - 1 > v->range.last)
But writing integer overflow check correctly is notoriously difficult.
Do you think you could send a fix for that which is separate from the
patcheset? We'd want to backport it to stable.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists