netdev - RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v0] qed/qed_dev: guard against a possible division by zero

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]

Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:20:30 +0000
From:   Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>
To:     Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
CC:     Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v0] qed/qed_dev: guard against a possible
 division by zero

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:53 PM
> To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
> Cc: Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>; Manish Chopra
> <manishc@...vell.com>; David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Eric
> Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>; Paolo
> Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>; Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v0] qed/qed_dev: guard against a possible division
> by zero
> 
> External Email
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> On 2/9/23 2:13 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 01:38:13PM +0300, Daniil Tatianin wrote:
> >> Previously we would divide total_left_rate by zero if num_vports
> >> happened to be 1 because non_requested_count is calculated as
> >> num_vports - req_count. Guard against this by explicitly checking for
> >> zero when doing the division.
> >>
> >> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the SVACE
> >> static analysis tool.
> >>
> >> Fixes: bcd197c81f63 ("qed: Add vport WFQ configuration APIs")
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@...dex-team.ru>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 2 +-
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
> >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
> >> index d61cd32ec3b6..90927f68c459 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
> >> @@ -5123,7 +5123,7 @@ static int qed_init_wfq_param(struct qed_hwfn
> >> *p_hwfn,
> >>
> >>   	total_left_rate	= min_pf_rate - total_req_min_rate;
> >>
> >> -	left_rate_per_vp = total_left_rate / non_requested_count;
> >> +	left_rate_per_vp = total_left_rate / (non_requested_count ?: 1);
> >
> > I don't know if num_vports can be 1.
> > But if it is then I agree that the above will be a divide by zero.
> >
> > I do, however, wonder if it would be better to either:
> >
> > * Treat this case as invalid and return with -EINVAL if num_vports is
> > 1; or
> I think that's a good idea considering num_vports == 1 is indeed an invalid
> value.
> I'd like to hear a maintainer's opinion on this.
 
Practically, this flow will only hit with presence of SR-IOV VFs. In that case it's
always expected to have num_vports > 1. 

> > * Skip both the calculation immediately above and the code
> >    in the if condition below, which is the only place where
> >    the calculated value is used, if num_vports is 1.
> >    I don't think the if clause makes much sense if num_vports is
> > one.left_rate_per_vp is also used below the if clause, it is assigned
> > to
> .min_speed in a for loop. Looking at that code division by 1 seems to make
> sense to me in this case.
> >
> >>   	if (left_rate_per_vp <  min_pf_rate / QED_WFQ_UNIT) {
> >>   		DP_VERBOSE(p_hwfn, NETIF_MSG_LINK,
> >>   			   "Non WFQ configured vports rate [%d Mbps] is less
> than one
> >> percent of configured PF min rate[%d Mbps]\n",
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >>