Messages in this thread | | | From | Alexander Shishkin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] virtio console: Harden multiport against invalid host input | Date | Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:52:02 +0200 |
| |
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 03:57:16PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote: >> From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >> >> --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c >> +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c >> @@ -1843,6 +1843,9 @@ static int init_vqs(struct ports_device *portdev) >> int err; >> >> nr_ports = portdev->max_nr_ports; >> + if (use_multiport(portdev) && nr_ports < 1) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> nr_queues = use_multiport(portdev) ? (nr_ports + 1) * 2 : 2; >> >> vqs = kmalloc_array(nr_queues, sizeof(struct virtqueue *), GFP_KERNEL); >> -- >> 2.39.0 >> > > Why did I only get a small subset of these patches?
I did what get_maintainer told me. Would you like to be CC'd on the whole thing?
> And why is the whole thread not on lore.kernel.org?
That is a mystery, some wires got crossed between my smtp and vger. I bounced the series to lkml just now and at least some of it seems to have landed on lore.
> And the term "hardening" is marketing fluff. Just say, "properly parse > input" or something like that, as what you are doing is fixing > assumptions about the data here, not causing anything to be more (or > less) secure. > > But, this still feels wrong. Why is this happening here, in init_vqs() > and not in the calling function that already did a bunch of validation > of the ports and the like? Are those checks not enough? if not, fix it > there, don't spread it out all over the place...
Good point! And there happens to already be 28962ec595d70 that takes care of exactly this case. I totally missed it.
Regards, -- Alex
| |