* [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 5:04 ` Laura Abbott
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Laura Abbott @ 2014-06-19 5:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
---
Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
your bootup problem?
---
drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
--- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
+++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
@@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
base &= PAGE_MASK;
size &= PAGE_MASK;
+
+#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
+ if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
+ pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
+ base, base + size);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
+ pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
+ ULONG_MAX, base + size);
+ size = ULONG_MAX - base;
+ }
+#endif
+
if (base + size < phys_offset) {
pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
base, base + size);
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
2014-06-19 5:04 ` Laura Abbott
@ 2014-06-19 7:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-06-19 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laura Abbott
Cc: Grant Likely, Rob Herring, devicetree-discuss, linux-kernel,
linux-arm-kernel, Simon Horman
Hi Laura,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
Thanks, works fine!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 7:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-06-19 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Laura,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
Thanks, works fine!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
2014-06-19 7:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
(?)
@ 2014-06-19 7:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-06-19 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laura Abbott
Cc: Grant Likely, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Simon Horman,
devicetree, Rob Herring
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
>> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
>> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
>> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
>> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
>> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
>> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>>
>> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>
>> ---
>> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
>> your bootup problem?
>
> Thanks, works fine!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 7:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-06-19 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
>> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
>> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
>> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
>> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
>> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
>> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>>
>> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>
>> ---
>> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
>> your bootup problem?
>
> Thanks, works fine!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 7:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-06-19 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laura Abbott
Cc: Grant Likely, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Simon Horman,
devicetree, Rob Herring
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
>> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
>> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
>> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
>> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
>> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
>> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>>
>> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>
>> ---
>> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
>> your bootup problem?
>
> Thanks, works fine!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 7:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-06-19 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laura Abbott
Cc: Grant Likely, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Rob Herring, devicetree
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
>
> ---
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> base &= PAGE_MASK;
> size &= PAGE_MASK;
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> + if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> + base, base + size);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
> + ULONG_MAX, base + size);
> + size = ULONG_MAX - base;
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> if (base + size < phys_offset) {
> pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> base, base + size);
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 7:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-06-19 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
>
> ---
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> base &= PAGE_MASK;
> size &= PAGE_MASK;
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> + if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> + base, base + size);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
> + ULONG_MAX, base + size);
> + size = ULONG_MAX - base;
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> if (base + size < phys_offset) {
> pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> base, base + size);
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 7:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-06-19 7:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laura Abbott
Cc: Grant Likely, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r, Rob Herring,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
Fixed Rob's and devicetree's addresses
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
>
> ---
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> base &= PAGE_MASK;
> size &= PAGE_MASK;
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> + if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> + base, base + size);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
> + ULONG_MAX, base + size);
> + size = ULONG_MAX - base;
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> if (base + size < phys_offset) {
> pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> base, base + size);
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
2014-06-19 5:04 ` Laura Abbott
@ 2014-06-19 13:57 ` Rob Herring
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2014-06-19 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laura Abbott
Cc: Grant Likely, Rob Herring, Geert Uytterhoeven,
devicetree-discuss, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
>
> ---
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> base &= PAGE_MASK;
> size &= PAGE_MASK;
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> + if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
How about removing the ifdef and doing something like:
if ((base >> 32) && (sizeof(phys_addr_t) != sizeof(u64)))
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> + base, base + size);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
> + ULONG_MAX, base + size);
> + size = ULONG_MAX - base;
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> if (base + size < phys_offset) {
> pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> base, base + size);
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 13:57 ` Rob Herring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2014-06-19 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> your bootup problem?
>
> ---
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> base &= PAGE_MASK;
> size &= PAGE_MASK;
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> + if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
How about removing the ifdef and doing something like:
if ((base >> 32) && (sizeof(phys_addr_t) != sizeof(u64)))
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> + base, base + size);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (base + size > ULONG_MAX) {
> + pr_warning("Ignoring memory range 0x%lx - 0x%llx\n",
> + ULONG_MAX, base + size);
> + size = ULONG_MAX - base;
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> if (base + size < phys_offset) {
> pr_warning("Ignoring memory block 0x%llx - 0x%llx\n",
> base, base + size);
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
2014-06-19 13:57 ` Rob Herring
@ 2014-06-19 17:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2014-06-19 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Herring
Cc: Laura Abbott, Grant Likely, Rob Herring, Geert Uytterhoeven,
devicetree-discuss, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> > of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> > the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> > be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> > being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> > range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> > phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
> >
> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> > Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> > your bootup problem?
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> > const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> > base &= PAGE_MASK;
> > size &= PAGE_MASK;
> > +
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> > + if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
>
> How about removing the ifdef and doing something like:
>
> if ((base >> 32) && (sizeof(phys_addr_t) != sizeof(u64)))
That is what I was about to suggest as well. Except that I'd use
sizeof(phys_addr_t) < sizeof(u64) just in case.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch
@ 2014-06-19 17:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2014-06-19 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size
> > of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if
> > the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may
> > be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory
> > being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the
> > range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if
> > phys_addr_t is smaller than u64.
> >
> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> > Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes
> > your bootup problem?
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
> > @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
> > const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET);
> > base &= PAGE_MASK;
> > size &= PAGE_MASK;
> > +
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> > + if (base > ULONG_MAX) {
>
> How about removing the ifdef and doing something like:
>
> if ((base >> 32) && (sizeof(phys_addr_t) != sizeof(u64)))
That is what I was about to suggest as well. Except that I'd use
sizeof(phys_addr_t) < sizeof(u64) just in case.
Nicolas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread