We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host
may not manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
---
drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
@@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8 request_type, u16 value,
} else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) == USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
/* Get endpoint status */
int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
+ if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
+ goto stall;
struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
u16 usep;
--
2.37.2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Ma Ke
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9
> udc
>
> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
> request_type, u16 value,
> } else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
> /* Get endpoint status */
> int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> + if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
> + goto stall;
Thanks. This seems to be the right thing to do. But normally we don't mix declarations with code within a code block. Could we re-arrange the code a little bit so declarations stay on top?
> struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
> u16 usep;
>
> --
> 2.37.2
Le 28/06/2023 à 19:04, Leo Li a écrit :
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
>> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Ma Ke
>> <[email protected]>
>> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for ch9
>> udc
>>
>> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
>> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
>> request_type, u16 value,
>> } else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
>> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
>> /* Get endpoint status */
>> int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
>> + if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
>> + goto stall;
>
> Thanks. This seems to be the right thing to do. But normally we don't mix declarations with code within a code block. Could we re-arrange the code a little bit so declarations stay on top?
But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?
The only missing thing is the blank line between the declarations and
the code, so that we clearly see where declarations end and where code
start.
>
>> struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
>> u16 usep;
>>
>> --
>> 2.37.2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:40 PM
> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>; Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> ch9 udc
>
>
>
> Le 28/06/2023 à 19:04, Leo Li a écrit :
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
> >> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; Ma Ke
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> >> ch9 udc
> >>
> >> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
> >> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
> >> request_type, u16 value,
> >> } else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
> >> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
> >> /* Get endpoint status */
> >> int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> >> + if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
> >> + goto stall;
> >
> > Thanks. This seems to be the right thing to do. But normally we don't mix
> declarations with code within a code block. Could we re-arrange the code a
> little bit so declarations stay on top?
>
> But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?
But they were at the beginning of a { } block which is compliant with the C89 standard. I know gcc is more relaxed from this. But it is probably still good to stick to the standard?
>
> The only missing thing is the blank line between the declarations and the
> code, so that we clearly see where declarations end and where code start.
>
> >
> >> struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
> >> u16 usep;
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.37.2
> >
Le 28/06/2023 à 23:10, Leo Li a écrit :
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:40 PM
>> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>; Ma Ke <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
>> [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
>> ch9 udc
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 28/06/2023 à 19:04, Leo Li a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
>>>> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
>>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Ma Ke
>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
>>>> ch9 udc
>>>>
>>>> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
>>>> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>>>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>>>> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
>>>> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
>>>> request_type, u16 value,
>>>> } else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
>>>> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
>>>> /* Get endpoint status */
>>>> int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
>>>> + if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
>>>> + goto stall;
>>>
>>> Thanks. This seems to be the right thing to do. But normally we don't mix
>> declarations with code within a code block. Could we re-arrange the code a
>> little bit so declarations stay on top?
>>
>> But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?
>
> But they were at the beginning of a { } block which is compliant with the C89 standard. I know gcc is more relaxed from this. But it is probably still good to stick to the standard?
Sorry I misread the patch and failed to see that the declaration block
was continuing after the change.
So yes don't interleave code with declarations. Leave declaration at the
top of a block with a blank line between declarations and code.
>
>>
>> The only missing thing is the blank line between the declarations and the
>> code, so that we clearly see where declarations end and where code start.
>>
>>>
>>>> struct qe_ep *target_ep = &udc->eps[pipe];
>>>> u16 usep;
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.37.2
>>>
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 05:56:30AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 28/06/2023 ? 23:10, Leo Li a ?crit?:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:40 PM
> >> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>; Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> >> ch9 udc
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 28/06/2023 ? 19:04, Leo Li a ?crit?:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
> >>>> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
> >>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc-
> >>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Ma Ke
> >>>> <[email protected]>
> >>>> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> >>>> ch9 udc
> >>>>
> >>>> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may not
> >>>> manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >>>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >>>> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> >>>> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc *udc, u8
> >>>> request_type, u16 value,
> >>>> } else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
> >>>> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
> >>>> /* Get endpoint status */
> >>>> int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> >>>> + if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
> >>>> + goto stall;
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. This seems to be the right thing to do. But normally we don't mix
> >> declarations with code within a code block. Could we re-arrange the code a
> >> little bit so declarations stay on top?
> >>
> >> But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?
> >
> > But they were at the beginning of a { } block which is compliant with the C89 standard. I know gcc is more relaxed from this. But it is probably still good to stick to the standard?
>
> Sorry I misread the patch and failed to see that the declaration block
> was continuing after the change.
>
> So yes don't interleave code with declarations. Leave declaration at the
> top of a block with a blank line between declarations and code.
This is fine as-is, no need to change anything.
greg k-h
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 3:41 AM
> To: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
> Cc: Leo Li <[email protected]>; Ma Ke <[email protected]>; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index for
> ch9 udc
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 05:56:30AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 28/06/2023 ? 23:10, Leo Li a ?crit?:
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 2:40 PM
> > >> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>; Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > >> linuxppc- [email protected]; [email protected]
> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint
> > >> index for
> > >> ch9 udc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Le 28/06/2023 ? 19:04, Leo Li a ?crit?:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 3:15 AM
> > >>>> To: Leo Li <[email protected]>
> > >>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> > >>>> linuxppc- [email protected]; [email protected]; Ma
> > >>>> Ke <[email protected]>
> > >>>> Subject: [PATCH] usb: gadget: fsl_qe_udc: validate endpoint index
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> ch9 udc
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We should verify the bound of the array to assure that host may
> > >>>> not manipulate the index to point past endpoint array.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <[email protected]>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c | 2 ++
> > >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> > >>>> b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> > >>>> index 3b1cc8fa30c8..f4e5cbd193b7 100644
> > >>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> > >>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_qe_udc.c
> > >>>> @@ -1959,6 +1959,8 @@ static void ch9getstatus(struct qe_udc
> > >>>> *udc, u8 request_type, u16 value,
> > >>>> } else if ((request_type & USB_RECIP_MASK) ==
> > >>>> USB_RECIP_ENDPOINT) {
> > >>>> /* Get endpoint status */
> > >>>> int pipe = index & USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> > >>>> + if (pipe >= USB_MAX_ENDPOINTS)
> > >>>> + goto stall;
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks. This seems to be the right thing to do. But normally we
> > >>> don't mix
> > >> declarations with code within a code block. Could we re-arrange
> > >> the code a little bit so declarations stay on top?
> > >>
> > >> But we are at the start of a code block aren't we ?
> > >
> > > But they were at the beginning of a { } block which is compliant with the
> C89 standard. I know gcc is more relaxed from this. But it is probably still
> good to stick to the standard?
> >
> > Sorry I misread the patch and failed to see that the declaration block
> > was continuing after the change.
> >
> > So yes don't interleave code with declarations. Leave declaration at
> > the top of a block with a blank line between declarations and code.
>
> This is fine as-is, no need to change anything.
With the approval from Greg, I have no objection to the patch.
Acked-by: Li Yang <[email protected]>
Regards,
Leo