All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Michael Henders <hendersm@shaw.ca>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] resource: Fix integer overflow at reallocation
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 17:23:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180409172326.944143fd13db2601e4dee9b0@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180408072026.27365-1-tiwai@suse.de>

On Sun,  8 Apr 2018 09:20:26 +0200 Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:

> We've got a bug report indicating a kernel panic at booting on an
> x86-32 system, and it turned out to be the invalid resource assigned
> after PCI resource reallocation.  __find_resource() first aligns the
> resource start address and resets the end address with start+size-1
> accordingly, then checks whether it's contained.  Here the end address
> may overflow the integer, although resource_contains() still returns
> true because the function validates only start and end address.  So
> this ends up with returning an invalid resource (start > end).
> 
> There was already an attempt to cover such a problem in the commit
> 47ea91b4052d ("Resource: fix wrong resource window calculation"), but
> this case is an overseen one.
> 
> This patch adds the validity check in resource_contains() to see
> whether the given resource has a valid range for avoiding the integer
> overflow problem.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/ioport.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ioport.h
> @@ -212,6 +212,9 @@ static inline bool resource_contains(struct resource *r1, struct resource *r2)
>  		return false;
>  	if (r1->flags & IORESOURCE_UNSET || r2->flags & IORESOURCE_UNSET)
>  		return false;
> +	/* sanity check whether it's a valid resource range */
> +	if (r2->end < r2->start)
> +		return false;
>  	return r1->start <= r2->start && r1->end >= r2->end;
>  }

This doesn't look like the correct place to handle this?  Clearly .end
< .start is an invalid state for a resource and we should never have
constructed such a thing in the first place?  So adding a check at the
place where this resource was initially created seems to be the correct
fix?

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-10  0:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-08  7:20 Takashi Iwai
2018-04-10  0:23 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2018-04-10  4:54   ` Takashi Iwai
2018-04-10 20:42     ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-11  0:37       ` Ram Pai
2018-04-11  6:16         ` Takashi Iwai
2018-04-11 14:08           ` Ram Pai

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180409172326.944143fd13db2601e4dee9b0@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=hendersm@shaw.ca \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2] resource: Fix integer overflow at reallocation' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.