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: <d534c11d-d4f4-4987-ba45-9628d9c039ee@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:21:07 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...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 8/28/25 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
...
>>>> 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?

Yes, that's what I meant. And I'm mainly trying to get some perspective
about what kinds of checking we should be doing.

In this case, it seems that we don't actually need anything more than
what you already have, so we're all good here.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard