On 4/14/2021 3:46 AM, Zhang, Tianfei wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com>
Sent: 2021年4月9日 22:56
To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
Cc: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>; sta...@dpdk.org;
Zhang, Tianfei <tianfei.zh...@intel.com>; Huang, Wei
<wei.hu...@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Xu, Rosen
<rosen...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Mcnamara, John
<john.mcnam...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] raw/ifpga/base: check size before assigning
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> writes:
On 4/8/2021 9:51 AM, Wei Huang wrote:
In max10_staging_area_init(), variable "size" from fdt_get_reg() may
be invalid, it should be checked before assigning to member variable
"staging_area_size" of structure "intel_max10_device".
Coverity issue: 367480, 367482
Fixes: 96ebfcf8125c ("raw/ifpga/base: add SPI and MAX10 device
driver")
Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <wei.hu...@intel.com>
---
v2: check size before assigning to staging_area_size
---
drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.c | 2 +-
drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.c
b/drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.c
index 443e248fb3..c223fafa03 100644
--- a/drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.c
+++ b/drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.c
@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ static int max10_staging_area_init(struct
intel_max10_device *dev)
continue;
ret = fdt_get_reg(fdt_root, offset, 0, &start, &size);
-if (!ret) {
+if (!ret && (size <= MAX_STAGING_AREA_SIZE)) {
dev->staging_area_base = start;
dev->staging_area_size = size;
}
diff --git a/drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.h
b/drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.h
index 670683f017..e7142d6f0d 100644
--- a/drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.h
+++ b/drivers/raw/ifpga/base/opae_intel_max10.h
@@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ struct opae_retimer_status {
#define SBUS_VERSIONGENMASK(31, 16)
#define DFT_MAX_SIZE0x7e0000
+#define MAX_STAGING_AREA_SIZE0x3800000
int max10_reg_read(struct intel_max10_device *dev,
unsigned int reg, unsigned int *val);
Hi Aaron, David,
The data flow is complex for this coverity issues [1], at least I
can't confirm that change fixes the issue.
Are you aware of any way to confirm this coverity issue before merging it?
Not generically. :-/
We need someone that understands the data flow and the coverity splat to
know that the fix is correct. Coverity even ratelimits how many outstanding
submissions we can post, iirc, so we don't get to push patch sets (unless we
pay? I don't recall if there's an option for that).
This fix is looks good for me. The fdt_get_reg() function just read out the
content of some items from DTS file,
We call the libfdt library API to do this.
The Coverity just assume some attacker broken the DTS file or invoke the
function with arbitrary values, it is not safety,
So this patch add some checking after the function return.
Hi Tianfei,
From the CI capacity perspective, it would be better to have a way to verify
Coverity fixes before merging them.
For most of the Coverity fixes we can tell that patch is fixing issue by review,
but for the non trivial cases like this, a way to verify patch, even it is
manual etc.., would be nice, otherwise it turns out to try and see Coverity fixes.
And as far as I remember we had in the past that a Coverity fix result two more
new Coverity issues :)
[1]
https://scan4.coverity.com/reports.htm#v26325/p10075/fileInstanceId=10
0181086&defectInstanceId=14238477&mergedDefectId=367480
