linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] accel/qaic: Fix integer overflow in qaic_validate

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <03bfed13-c541-4a09-8330-ca3563be0f77@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:12:53 -0700
From: Jeff Hugo <jeff.hugo@....qualcomm.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Carl Vanderlip <quic_carlv@...cinc.com>, Oded Gabbay
 <ogabbay@...nel.org>,
        Jacek Lawrynowicz <jacek.lawrynowicz@...ux.intel.com>,
        Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] accel/qaic: Fix integer overflow in qaic_validate_req()

On 3/5/2025 8:53 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> These are u64 variables that come from the user via
> qaic_attach_slice_bo_ioctl().  Ensure that the math doesn't have an
> integer wrapping bug.
> 
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: ff13be830333 ("accel/qaic: Add datapath")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> ---
>   drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> index c20eb63750f5..cd5a31edba66 100644
> --- a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> +++ b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> @@ -563,7 +563,8 @@ static int qaic_validate_req(struct qaic_device *qdev, struct qaic_attach_slice_
>   		      invalid_sem(&slice_ent[i].sem2) || invalid_sem(&slice_ent[i].sem3))
>   			return -EINVAL;
>   
> -		if (slice_ent[i].offset + slice_ent[i].size > total_size)
> +		if (slice_ent[i].offset > U64_MAX - slice_ent[i].size ||
> +		    slice_ent[i].offset + slice_ent[i].size > total_size)
>   			return -EINVAL;
>   	}
>   

I agree this is an issue that needs to be addressed.  However, it seems 
that overflow checking helpers exist (include/linux/overflow.h), 
therefore open coding a check feels non-preferable.  I think 
check_add_overflow() would be the way to go.  Do you agree?

-Jeff