From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:46:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo() Message-Id: <20190415094610.GO6095@kadam> List-Id: References: <20190412175504.GA20857@kadam> In-Reply-To: <20190412175504.GA20857@kadam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 08:25:05PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-rdma-owner@vger.kernel.org > owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Dan Carpenter > > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 12:55 PM > > To: Leon Romanovsky ; Eli Cohen > > Cc: Doug Ledford ; Jason Gunthorpe ; > > linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo() > > > > My static checker complains that these "vf" variables come from the user in > > do_setvfinfo() and haven't been checked to make sure they're valid. > > > > Fixes: eff901d30e6c ("IB/mlx5: Implement callbacks for manipulating VFs") > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > > --- > > Untested static checker stuff. Please review carefully. > > > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c > > b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c > > index 649a3364f838..9a8eebe3d462 100644 > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c > > @@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ int mlx5_ib_get_vf_config(struct ib_device *device, int > > vf, u8 port, > > struct mlx5_hca_vport_context *rep; > > int err; > > > > + if (vf < 0 || vf >= pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(mdev->pdev)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > I traced back ndo_get_vf_config and friend functions. vf number is u32 from user space. > > And all the VF operations at ndo ops level and at driver level should be changed from int to u32. > After that vf < 0 check is not needed. > I've been thinking about this and I don't think it's a good idea. It just makes backporting the fix a lot more complicated. It might be a good idea as a cleanup later though. regards, dan carpenter