Message-ID: <5ad788427171d3c0374f24d4714ba0b429cbcfdf.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bnxt: avoid overflow in bnxt_get_nvram_directory()
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>,
        Maxim Korotkov <korotkov.maxim.s@gmail.com>
Cc:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com>,
        Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@broadcom.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:34:30 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Y/Iuu9SiAxh7qhJM@corigine.com>
References: <20230219084656.17926-1-korotkov.maxim.s@gmail.com>
         <Y/Iuu9SiAxh7qhJM@corigine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2023-02-19 at 15:14 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:46:56AM +0300, Maxim Korotkov wrote:
> > The value of an arithmetic expression is subject
> > of possible overflow due to a failure to cast operands to a larger data
> > type before performing arithmetic. Used macro for multiplication instea=
d
> > operator for avoiding overflow.
> >=20
> > Found by Security Code and Linux Verification
> > Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> >=20
> > Fixes: c0c050c58d84 ("bnxt_en: New Broadcom ethernet driver.")
> > Signed-off-by: Maxim Korotkov <korotkov.maxim.s@gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@broadcom.com>
>=20
> I agree that it is correct to use mul_u32_u32() for multiplication
> of two u32 entities where the result is 64bit, avoiding overflow.
>=20
> And I agree that the fixes tag indicates the commit where the code
> in question was introduced.
>=20
> However, it is not clear to me if this is a theoretical bug
> or one that can manifest in practice - I think it implies that
> buflen really can be > 4Gbytes.
>=20
> And thus it is not clear to me if this patch should be for 'net' or
> 'net-next'.

... especially considered that both 'dir_entries' and 'entry_length'
are copied back to the user-space using a single byte each.

Cheers,

Paolo