linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: mvebu: Fix endianity when accessing pci emul bridge members

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3096bb82-62e6-bc9f-1600-fb58d6826302@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Aug 2022 11:32:59 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: mvebu: Fix endianity when accessing pci emul bridge
 members

On 2022-08-12 10:40, Pali Rohár wrote:
> PCI emul bridge members iolimitupper, iobaseupper, memlimit and membase are
> of type __le16, so correctly access these members via le16_to_cpu() macros.
> 
> Fixes: 4ded69473adb ("PCI: mvebu: Propagate errors when updating PCI_IO_BASE and PCI_MEM_BASE registers")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
> ---
>   drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c | 12 ++++++------
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> index c1ffdb06c971..00ea0836b81a 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_handle_iobase_change(struct mvebu_pcie_port *port)
>   
>   	/* Are the new iobase/iolimit values invalid? */
>   	if (conf->iolimit < conf->iobase ||
> -	    conf->iolimitupper < conf->iobaseupper)
> +	    le16_to_cpu(conf->iolimitupper) < le16_to_cpu(conf->iobaseupper))
>   		return mvebu_pcie_set_window(port, port->io_target, port->io_attr,
>   					     &desired, &port->iowin);
>   
> @@ -535,10 +535,10 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_handle_iobase_change(struct mvebu_pcie_port *port)
>   	 * is the CPU address.
>   	 */
>   	desired.remap = ((conf->iobase & 0xF0) << 8) |
> -			(conf->iobaseupper << 16);
> +			le16_to_cpu(conf->iobaseupper << 16);

This will always give 0, even when natively LE.

>   	desired.base = port->pcie->io.start + desired.remap;
>   	desired.size = ((0xFFF | ((conf->iolimit & 0xF0) << 8) |
> -			 (conf->iolimitupper << 16)) -
> +			 le16_to_cpu(conf->iolimitupper << 16)) -

Similarly here.

Robin.

>   			desired.remap) +
>   		       1;
>   
> @@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_handle_membase_change(struct mvebu_pcie_port *port)
>   	struct pci_bridge_emul_conf *conf = &port->bridge.conf;
>   
>   	/* Are the new membase/memlimit values invalid? */
> -	if (conf->memlimit < conf->membase)
> +	if (le16_to_cpu(conf->memlimit) < le16_to_cpu(conf->membase))
>   		return mvebu_pcie_set_window(port, port->mem_target, port->mem_attr,
>   					     &desired, &port->memwin);
>   
> @@ -562,8 +562,8 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_handle_membase_change(struct mvebu_pcie_port *port)
>   	 * window to setup, according to the PCI-to-PCI bridge
>   	 * specifications.
>   	 */
> -	desired.base = ((conf->membase & 0xFFF0) << 16);
> -	desired.size = (((conf->memlimit & 0xFFF0) << 16) | 0xFFFFF) -
> +	desired.base = ((le16_to_cpu(conf->membase) & 0xFFF0) << 16);
> +	desired.size = (((le16_to_cpu(conf->memlimit) & 0xFFF0) << 16) | 0xFFFFF) -
>   		       desired.base + 1;
>   
>   	return mvebu_pcie_set_window(port, port->mem_target, port->mem_attr, &desired,