linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: Prevent overflow in proc_bus_pci

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: <df3dba86-e6c3-484a-b384-6c6197afcfe3@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 17:33:09 +0800
From: duziming <duziming2@...wei.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, LKML
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <chrisw@...hat.com>,
	<jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>, <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	<liuyongqiang13@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: Prevent overflow in proc_bus_pci_write()


在 2025/12/16 18:57, Ilpo Järvinen 写道:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2025, Ziming Du wrote:
>
>> When the value of ppos over the INT_MAX, the pos will be
> is over
>
>> set a negtive value which will be pass to get_user() or
> set to a negative value which will be passed
>
>> pci_user_write_config_dword(). And unexpected behavior
> Please start the sentence with something else than And.
>
> Hmm, the lines look rather short too, can you please reflow the changelog
> paragraphs to 75 characters.

Thanks for the review. I'll reflow the changelog to 75-character lines 
and avoid

starting sentences with 'And' in the next revision.

>> such as a softlock happens:
>>
>>   watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 130s! [syz.3.109:3444]
>>   Modules linked in:
>>   CPU: 0 PID: 3444 Comm: syz.3.109 Not tainted 6.6.0+ #33
>>   Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
>>   RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x17/0x30
>>   Code: cc cc cc 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 f3 0f 1e fa 0f 1f 44 00 00 e8 52 12 00 00 90 fb 65 ff 0d b1 a1 86 6d <74> 05 e9 42 52 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 c3 cc cc cc cc 0f 1f 84 00 00
>>   RSP: 0018:ffff88816851fb50 EFLAGS: 00000246
>>   RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffffffff927daf9b
>>   RDX: 0000000000000cfc RSI: 0000000000000046 RDI: ffffffff9a7c7400
>>   RBP: 00000000818bb9dc R08: 0000000000000001 R09: ffffed102d0a3f59
>>   R10: 0000000000000003 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000
>>   R13: ffff888102220000 R14: ffffffff926d3b10 R15: 00000000210bbb5f
>>   FS:  00007ff2d4e56640(0000) GS:ffff8881f5c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>   CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>   CR2: 00000000210bbb5b CR3: 0000000147374002 CR4: 0000000000772ef0
>>   PKRU: 00000000
>>   Call Trace:
>>    <TASK>
>>    pci_user_write_config_dword+0x126/0x1f0
>>    ? __get_user_nocheck_8+0x20/0x20
>>    proc_bus_pci_write+0x273/0x470
>>    proc_reg_write+0x1b6/0x280
>>    do_iter_write+0x48e/0x790
>>    ? import_iovec+0x47/0x90
>>    vfs_writev+0x125/0x4a0
>>    ? futex_wake+0xed/0x500
>>    ? __pfx_vfs_writev+0x10/0x10
>>    ? userfaultfd_ioctl+0x131/0x1ae0
>>    ? userfaultfd_ioctl+0x131/0x1ae0
>>    ? do_futex+0x17e/0x220
>>    ? __pfx_do_futex+0x10/0x10
>>    ? __fget_files+0x193/0x2b0
>>    __x64_sys_pwritev+0x1e2/0x2a0
>>    ? __pfx___x64_sys_pwritev+0x10/0x10
>>    do_syscall_64+0x59/0x110
>>    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
> Could you please trim the dump so it only contains things relevant to this
> issue () (also check trimming in the other patches).
Thanks for pointing that out, we'll make sure to only keep the relevant 
stacks in future patches.
>> Fix this by use unsigned int for the pos.
>>
>> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
>> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@...wei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ziming Du <duziming2@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pci/proc.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/proc.c b/drivers/pci/proc.c
>> index 9348a0fb8084..dbec1d4209c9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/proc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/proc.c
>> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static ssize_t proc_bus_pci_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>>   {
>>   	struct inode *ino = file_inode(file);
>>   	struct pci_dev *dev = pde_data(ino);
>> -	int pos = *ppos;
>> +	unsigned int pos = *ppos;
>>   	int size = dev->cfg_size;
>>   	int cnt, ret;
> So this still throws away some bits compared with the original ppos ?

The current approach may lose some precision compared to the original 
ppos, but a later check ensures  pos

remains valid—so any potential information loss is handled safely.

>