linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Fix a couple "prio" signedness bugs

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: <87cyeaqprd.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:04:22 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Fix a couple "prio" signedness bugs

Hey Dan,

On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:32:53 +0000,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> There is an assert which relies on "prio" to be signed.
> 
> 	GUEST_ASSERT(prio >= 0);
> 
> Change the type from uint32_t to int.
> 
> Fixes: 728fcc46d2c2 ("KVM: selftests: aarch64: Add test for restoring active IRQs")
> Fixes: 0ad3ff4a6adc ("KVM: selftests: aarch64: Add preemption tests in vgic_irq")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> ---
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vgic_irq.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vgic_irq.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vgic_irq.c
> index f4ac28d53747..e89c0fc5eef3 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vgic_irq.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/vgic_irq.c
> @@ -294,7 +294,8 @@ static void guest_restore_active(struct test_args *args,
>  		uint32_t first_intid, uint32_t num,
>  		kvm_inject_cmd cmd)
>  {
> -	uint32_t prio, intid, ap1r;
> +	uint32_t intid, ap1r;
> +	int prio;
>  	int i;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -362,7 +363,8 @@ static void test_inject_preemption(struct test_args *args,
>  		uint32_t first_intid, int num,
>  		kvm_inject_cmd cmd)
>  {
> -	uint32_t intid, prio, step = KVM_PRIO_STEPS;
> +	uint32_t intid, step = KVM_PRIO_STEPS;
> +	int prio;
>  	int i;
>  
>  	/* Set the priorities of the first (KVM_NUM_PRIOS - 1) IRQs

I think this is going in the wrong direction. A GIC priority is an
unsigned 8bit value as per the architecture definition.

So the type used by the test the first place looks wrong (it is too
wide), and the assertion is pointless.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.