linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] nvme: reject invalid pr_read_keys() num

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: <69b3b390-77fe-440c-8747-096c0b26a112@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 07:11:31 +0000
From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, "linux-block@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, "Martin K. Petersen"
	<martin.petersen@...cle.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "James E.J. Bottomley"
	<James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Mike
 Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>, "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Sagi Grimberg
	<sagi@...mberg.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] nvme: reject invalid pr_read_keys() num_keys
 values

On 11/27/25 07:54, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The pr_read_keys() interface has a u32 num_keys parameter. The NVMe
> Reservation Report command has a u32 maximum length. Reject num_keys
> values that are too large to fit.
>
> This will become important when pr_read_keys() is exposed to untrusted
> userspace via an <linux/pr.h> ioctl.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@...hat.com>
> ---
>   drivers/nvme/host/pr.c | 4 ++++
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
> index ca6a74607b139..156a2ae1fac2e 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pr.c
> @@ -233,6 +233,10 @@ static int nvme_pr_read_keys(struct block_device *bdev,
>   	int ret, i;
>   	bool eds;
>   
> +	/* Check that keys fit into u32 rse_len */
> +	if (num_keys > (U32_MAX - sizeof(*rse)) / sizeof(rse->regctl_eds[0]))
> +		return -EINVAL;

de-referencing res in res->regctl_eds[0] is safe in this patch ?

if so please ignore this comment ...

-ck