linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] gpu: nova-core: firmware: add support for common firmware header

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

Message-Id: <DCDVECIAW1NI.2J8SHDVJLY7V5@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 16:08:29 +0900
From: "Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@...dia.com>
To: "John Hubbard" <jhubbard@...dia.com>, "Miguel Ojeda" <ojeda@...nel.org>,
 "Alex Gaynor" <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
 "Gary Guo" <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron
 <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, "Benno Lossin" <lossin@...nel.org>, "Andreas
 Hindborg" <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, "Alice Ryhl" <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
 "Trevor Gross" <tmgross@...ch.edu>, "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>,
 "David Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>, "Simona Vetter" <simona@...ll.ch>,
 "Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, "Maxime Ripard"
 <mripard@...nel.org>, "Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Cc: "Alistair Popple" <apopple@...dia.com>, "Joel Fernandes"
 <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, "Timur Tabi" <ttabi@...dia.com>,
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] gpu: nova-core: firmware: add support for common
 firmware header

On Thu Aug 28, 2025 at 6:50 AM JST, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/27/25 1:47 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Wed Aug 27, 2025 at 10:34 AM JST, John Hubbard wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> +    /// Returns the data payload of the firmware, or `None` if the data range is out of bounds of
>>>> +    /// the firmware image.
>>>> +    fn data(&self) -> Option<&[u8]> {
>>>> +        let fw_start = self.hdr.data_offset as usize;
>>>> +        let fw_size = self.hdr.data_size as usize;
>>>> +
>>>> +        self.fw.get(fw_start..fw_start + fw_size)
>>>
>>> This worries me a bit, because we never checked that these bounds
>>> are reasonable: within the range of the firmware, and not overflowing
>>> (.checked_add() for example), that sort of thing.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> `get` returns `None` if the requested slice is out of bounds, so there
>> should be no risk of panicking here.
>
> I was wondering about the bounds themselves, though. Couldn't they
> be wrong? (Do we care?)

Not sure what you mean by wrong bounds here? Do you mean what if the
header data is incorrect?