(I think this is the first cover letter I have ever written). These patches are based on review and not from testing. I found it quite complicated to track the buffer sizes. What happens is the qaic_manage() gets a buffer user_msg->data[] which has user_msg->len bytes. The qaic_manage() calls qaic_manage_msg_xfer() which encodes the user's message. Then we get a response and we decode the response back into user_msg->data[], but we don't check that it is overflowed. We instead copy seem to check against msg_hdr_len (which would prevent a read overflow). At the end user_msg->len gets set to the number of bytes that we copied to the buffer. I'm coming to this code brand new, it's the first time I have seen it. So I don't really understand. There is an element of trust in msg_hdr_len but then at other times we check it for integer overflows which indicates deep distrust. What I'm saying is that there may be more issues in this code. But also that I don't really understand it so please review carefully. The patch that I'm least sure of is 4/5: [PATCH 4/5] accel/qaic: move and expand integer overflow checks for map_user_pages() regards, dan carpenter
