The "code_length * 2" can overflow. The round_up(ucode_size, 16) +
sizeof() expression can overflow too. Prevent these overflows.
Fixes: d9110b0b01ff ("crypto: marvell - add support for OCTEON TX CPT engine")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
I chose INT_MAX because it's way higher than what kmalloc() can allocate
and it makes the code simpler. I think there is a static checker which
tells people to change these to UINT_MAX. Don't do that, or at least
CC me if you do.
.../crypto/marvell/octeontx/otx_cptpf_ucode.c | 23 +++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/marvell/octeontx/otx_cptpf_ucode.c b/drivers/crypto/marvell/octeontx/otx_cptpf_ucode.c
index 23c6edc70914..1be85820d677 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/marvell/octeontx/otx_cptpf_ucode.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/marvell/octeontx/otx_cptpf_ucode.c
@@ -286,6 +286,7 @@ static int process_tar_file(struct device *dev,
struct tar_ucode_info_t *tar_info;
struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr *ucode_hdr;
int ucode_type, ucode_size;
+ unsigned int code_length;
/*
* If size is less than microcode header size then don't report
@@ -303,7 +304,13 @@ static int process_tar_file(struct device *dev,
if (get_ucode_type(ucode_hdr, &ucode_type))
return 0;
- ucode_size = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length) * 2;
+ code_length = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length);
+ if (code_length >= INT_MAX / 2) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Invalid code_length %u\n", code_length);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ ucode_size = code_length * 2;
if (!ucode_size || (size < round_up(ucode_size, 16) +
sizeof(struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr) + OTX_CPT_UCODE_SIGN_LEN)) {
dev_err(dev, "Ucode %s invalid size\n", filename);
@@ -886,6 +893,7 @@ static int ucode_load(struct device *dev, struct otx_cpt_ucode *ucode,
{
struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr *ucode_hdr;
const struct firmware *fw;
+ unsigned int code_length;
int ret;
set_ucode_filename(ucode, ucode_filename);
@@ -896,9 +904,16 @@ static int ucode_load(struct device *dev, struct otx_cpt_ucode *ucode,
ucode_hdr = (struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr *) fw->data;
memcpy(ucode->ver_str, ucode_hdr->ver_str, OTX_CPT_UCODE_VER_STR_SZ);
ucode->ver_num = ucode_hdr->ver_num;
- ucode->size = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length) * 2;
- if (!ucode->size || (fw->size < round_up(ucode->size, 16)
- + sizeof(struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr) + OTX_CPT_UCODE_SIGN_LEN)) {
+ code_length = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length);
+ if (code_length >= INT_MAX / 2) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto release_fw;
+ }
+ ucode->size = code_length * 2;
+ if (!ucode->size ||
+ ucode->size > fw->size ||
+ (fw->size < round_up(ucode->size, 16) +
+ sizeof(struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr) + OTX_CPT_UCODE_SIGN_LEN)) {
dev_err(dev, "Ucode %s invalid size\n", ucode_filename);
ret = -EINVAL;
goto release_fw;
--
2.35.1
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:32:09PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> @@ -303,7 +304,13 @@ static int process_tar_file(struct device *dev,
> if (get_ucode_type(ucode_hdr, &ucode_type))
> return 0;
>
> - ucode_size = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length) * 2;
> + code_length = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length);
> + if (code_length >= INT_MAX / 2) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Invalid code_length %u\n", code_length);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + ucode_size = code_length * 2;
> if (!ucode_size || (size < round_up(ucode_size, 16) +
> sizeof(struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr) + OTX_CPT_UCODE_SIGN_LEN)) {
> dev_err(dev, "Ucode %s invalid size\n", filename);
How come you didn't add a "ucode_size > size" check like you did
below?
> @@ -896,9 +904,16 @@ static int ucode_load(struct device *dev, struct otx_cpt_ucode *ucode,
> ucode_hdr = (struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr *) fw->data;
> memcpy(ucode->ver_str, ucode_hdr->ver_str, OTX_CPT_UCODE_VER_STR_SZ);
> ucode->ver_num = ucode_hdr->ver_num;
> - ucode->size = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length) * 2;
> - if (!ucode->size || (fw->size < round_up(ucode->size, 16)
> - + sizeof(struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr) + OTX_CPT_UCODE_SIGN_LEN)) {
> + code_length = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length);
> + if (code_length >= INT_MAX / 2) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto release_fw;
> + }
> + ucode->size = code_length * 2;
> + if (!ucode->size ||
> + ucode->size > fw->size ||
> + (fw->size < round_up(ucode->size, 16) +
> + sizeof(struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr) + OTX_CPT_UCODE_SIGN_LEN)) {
> dev_err(dev, "Ucode %s invalid size\n", ucode_filename);
> ret = -EINVAL;
> goto release_fw;
> --
> 2.35.1
Thanks,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:34:42PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:32:09PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > @@ -303,7 +304,13 @@ static int process_tar_file(struct device *dev,
> > if (get_ucode_type(ucode_hdr, &ucode_type))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - ucode_size = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length) * 2;
> > + code_length = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length);
> > + if (code_length >= INT_MAX / 2) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Invalid code_length %u\n", code_length);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ucode_size = code_length * 2;
> > if (!ucode_size || (size < round_up(ucode_size, 16) +
> > sizeof(struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr) + OTX_CPT_UCODE_SIGN_LEN)) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Ucode %s invalid size\n", filename);
>
> How come you didn't add a "ucode_size > size" check like you did
> below?
>
I'm really sorry. This was not my best work at all. The ucode_size
was a mistake. It should have just been the check against INT_MAX.
regards,
dan carpenter