Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-165883-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Feedback-ID: i58a146ae:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 10:47:21 +1000 (AEST)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, 
    "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, 
    Erick Archer <erick.archer@outlook.com>, 
    Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>, 
    "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, 
    linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] scsi: csiostor: Use kcalloc() instead of kzalloc()
In-Reply-To: <c358208c5d4c823e3373aca4fe42998a6edd12fb.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Message-ID: <66bca69a-0036-4108-5963-002cce69376a@linux-m68k.org>
References: <AS8PR02MB7237BA2BBAA646DFDB21C63B8B392@AS8PR02MB7237.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>  <202404291019.5AC903A@keescook> <yq17cgg58sp.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>  <202404291259.3A8EE11@keescook>
 <c358208c5d4c823e3373aca4fe42998a6edd12fb.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 1 May 2024, James Bottomley wrote:

> > The code itself is fine unless you have a 32-bit system with a 
> > malicious card, so yeah, near zero risk.
> 
> Well, no actually zero: we assume plugged in hardware to operate 
> correctly (had this argument in the driver hardening thread a while 
> ago), but in this particular case you'd have to have a card with a very 
> high number of ports, which would cause kernel allocations to fail long 
> before anything could introduce an overflow of sizeof(struct csio_lnode
> *) * hw->num_lns.
> 

Then it should be safe to add an equivalent assertion. E.g. 
BUG_ON(hw->num_lns > X) where X was derived either from knowledge of the 
hardware or from some known-safe kalloc() limit. Though I wonder whether 
BUG_ON() is the best way to encode preconditions for the benfit of static 
checkers...