lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH] x86: add phys addr validity check for /dev/mem mmap
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:36:09AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 11:31 AM, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 10:46:35AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 10/02/2013 09:05 AM, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
> >>> +
> >>> +int valid_phys_addr_range(phys_addr_t addr, size_t count)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return addr + count <= __pa(high_memory);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +int valid_mmap_phys_addr_range(unsigned long pfn, size_t count)
> >>> +{
> >>> + resource_size_t addr = (pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) + count;
> >>> + return phys_addr_valid(addr);
> >>> +}
> >>>
> >>
> >> The latter has overflow problems.
> >
> > Could you please specify what overflow problems do you mean?
>
> Consider if pfn + count overflows and wraps around, or if (pfn <<
> PAGE_SHIFT) pushes bits out to the left.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this handled in
do_mmap_pgoff?

/* offset overflow? */
if ((pgoff + (len >> PAGE_SHIFT)) < pgoff)
return -EOVERFLOW;

Anyway I can take a closer look and if this can really happen I can fix it.

>
> >> The former I realize matches the current /dev/mem, but it is still just
> >> plain wrong in multiple ways.
> >
> > I guess that you are talking about /dev/mem implementation generelly, because
> > this patch is exactly the same as the first one. All I'm trying to do here is to
> > fix this simple problem, which was reported by a customer, using IMHO the least
> > invasive way. Anyway is there any description what is wrong with /dev/mem
> > implementation? Maybe I can try to take a look.
> >
>
> The bottom line is that read/write to /dev/mem should be able to access
> the same memory that we can mmap(). Having two different tests is
> ridiculous.

Ok, I can try to look into this. I just want to point out that some other archs
like arm are doing it the same way. I simply replaced the generic check functions
in drivers/char/mem.c with x86 specific ones.

Thanks

>
> -hpa
>
>

--
Frantisek Hrbata


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-02 21:01    [W:0.083 / U:3.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site