[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06d5e94f-1c3b-9ab1-b4ff-79007026585a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:13:01 +0300
From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mayank Rana <quic_mrana@...cinc.com>, peter.chen@...nel.org,
balbi@...nel.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] xhci: Use xhci_get_virt_ep() to validate ep_index
On 29.4.2022 12.49, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> On 28.4.2022 22.04, Mayank Rana wrote:
>> ring_doorbell_for_active_rings() API is being called from
>> multiple context. This specific API tries to get virt_dev
>> based endpoint using passed slot_id and ep_index. Some caller
>> API is having check against slot_id and ep_index using
>> xhci_get_virt_ep() API whereas xhci_handle_cmd_config_ep() API
>> only check ep_index against -1 value but not upper bound i.e.
>> EP_CTX_PER_DEV. Hence use xhci_get_virt_ep() API to get virt_dev
>> based endpoint which checks both slot_id and ep_index to get
>> valid endpoint.
>
> ep_index upper bound is known to be in range as EP_CTX_PER_DEV is 31,
> and ep_index = fls(u32 value) - 1 - 1;
>
> We can change to use xhci_get_virt_ep(), but this would be more useful
> earlier in xhci_handle_cmd_config_ep() where we touch the ep before
> calling ring_doorbell_for_active_rings()
>
After a second look I would appreciate if you could clean up
ep_index checking in xhci_handle_cmd_config_ep()
It currenty does some horrible typecasting.
ep_index is an unsigned int, so the fls() -1 operation might wrap it around.
Checking this was solved by typecasting a -1 to an unsigned int.
if (ep_index != (unsigned int) -1)
Thanks
Mathias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists