On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:22:49AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> There is a comment here which says that DIV_ROUND_UP() and that's where
> the problem comes from. Say you pick:
>
> args->bpp = UINT_MAX - 7;
> args->width = 4;
> args->height = 1;
>
> The integer overflow in DIV_ROUND_UP() means "cpp" is UINT_MAX / 8 and
> because of how we picked args->width that means cpp < UINT_MAX / 4.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com>
> ---
> Btw, DIV_ROUND_UP() integer overflows have been a recurring source of
> bugs so I have an unreleased static checker warning specific for that.
> This line triggers three warnings for me on my unreleased code:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dumb_buffers.c:69 drm_mode_create_dumb_ioctl() warn:
> negative user subtract: 0-u32max - 1
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dumb_buffers.c:69 drm_mode_create_dumb_ioctl() warn:
> potential integer overflow from user '(args->bpp) + (8)'
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dumb_buffers.c:69 drm_mode_create_dumb_ioctl() warn:
> potential integer overflow in 'DIV_ROUND_UP'
>
> It's a pretty common idiom in the kernel to overflow and then test for
> it later so I'm not able to release this code because of the number of
> false positives that this idiom causes...
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dumb_buffers.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dumb_buffers.c
> index 39ac15ce4702..45b0b5bbb5f8 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dumb_buffers.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dumb_buffers.c
> @@ -65,7 +65,8 @@ int drm_mode_create_dumb_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev,
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* overflow checks for 32bit size calculations */
> - /* NOTE: DIV_ROUND_UP() can overflow */
> + if (args->bpp > UINT_MAX - 8)
> + return -EINVAL;
> cpp = DIV_ROUND_UP(args->bpp, 8);
> if (!cpp || cpp > 0xffffffffU / args->width)
The !cpp check is now redundant, this was our minimal overflow check. Note
that we only really care for cpp != 0 and that the size calculation doesn't
overflow. Userspace specifying a completely bogus bpp value is ok
otherwise (reasonable values only go up to about 128). So I think there's
no security issue here.
Anyway, can you pls respin with the !cpp check removed? See also
commit 6a77e80e55cacace60ff03aa717a6d364a401d2b (HEAD -> stuff)
Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
Date: Mon Apr 30 17:04:10 2018 +0200
backlight: remove obsolete comment for ->state
for context.
Thanks, Daniel
> return -EINVAL;
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
