On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:08 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 17:58 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 5:50 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 11:28 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:17:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Use the helper that checks for overflows internally instead of manually
> > > > > calculating the size of the new array.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > No problem with the patch, it does introduce some symmetry in the code.
> > >
> > > Perhaps more symmetry by using kmemdup
> > > ---
> > > drivers/vhost/vringh.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > > index 8bd8b403f087..99222a3651cd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
> > > @@ -191,26 +191,23 @@ static int move_to_indirect(const struct vringh *vrh,
> > > static int resize_iovec(struct vringh_kiov *iov, gfp_t gfp)
> > > {
> > > struct kvec *new;
> > > - unsigned int flag, new_num = (iov->max_num & ~VRINGH_IOV_ALLOCATED) * 2;
> > > + size_t new_num = (iov->max_num & ~VRINGH_IOV_ALLOCATED) * 2;
> > > + size_t size;
> > >
> > > if (new_num < 8)
> > > new_num = 8;
> > >
> > > - flag = (iov->max_num & VRINGH_IOV_ALLOCATED);
> > > - if (flag)
> > > - new = krealloc(iov->iov, new_num * sizeof(struct iovec), gfp);
> > > - else {
> > > - new = kmalloc_array(new_num, sizeof(struct iovec), gfp);
> > > - if (new) {
> > > - memcpy(new, iov->iov,
> > > - iov->max_num * sizeof(struct iovec));
> > > - flag = VRINGH_IOV_ALLOCATED;
> > > - }
> > > - }
> > > + if (unlikely(check_mul_overflow(new_num, sizeof(struct iovec), &size)))
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> >
> > The whole point of using helpers such as kmalloc_array() is not doing
> > these checks manually.
>
> Tradeoffs for in readability for overflow and not mistyping or doing
> the multiplication of iov->max_num * sizeof(struct iovec) twice.
>
It's out of scope for this series - I want to add users for
krealloc_array(), not refactor code I don't really know. If the
maintainer of this bit objects, it can be dropped.
> Just fyi:
>
> the realloc doesn't do a multiplication overflow test as written so the
> suggestion is slightly more resistant to defect.
>
I'm not sure what your point is. I used krealloc_array() exactly for
this reason - to add the overflow test.
BTW I suppose kmalloc_array() here can be replaced with
krealloc_array() if the original pointer is NULL the first time it's
called.
Bartosz
