[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <03997448-cd88-4b80-ab85-fe1100203339@p183>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:44:42 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: less size_t please (was Re: [PATCH net] xfrm: fix integer overflow
in xfrm_replay_state_esn_len())
> -static inline unsigned int xfrm_replay_state_esn_len(struct xfrm_replay_state_esn *replay_esn)
> +static inline size_t xfrm_replay_state_esn_len(struct xfrm_replay_state_esn *replay_esn)
> {
> - return sizeof(*replay_esn) + replay_esn->bmp_len * sizeof(__u32);
> + return size_add(sizeof(*replay_esn), size_mul(replay_esn->bmp_len, sizeof(__u32)));
Please don't do this.
You can (and should!) make calculations and check for overflow at the
same time. It's very efficient.
> 1) Use size_add() and size_mul(). This change is necessary for 32bit systems.
This bloats code on 32-bit.
int len;
if (__builtin_mul_overflow(replay_esn->bmp_len, 4, &len)) {
return true;
}
if (__builtin_add_overflow(len, sizeof(*replay_esn), &len)) {
return true;
}
*plen = len;
return false;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists