Re: [PATCH] KVM: sev: Fix int overflow in send|recieve_update_data ioctls

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/10/23 10:44, Peter Gonda wrote:

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
index 273cba809328..9451de72f917 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
@@ -1294,7 +1294,7 @@ static int sev_send_update_data(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_sev_cmd *argp)

       /* Check if we are crossing the page boundary */
       offset = params.guest_uaddr & (PAGE_SIZE - 1);
-     if ((params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE))
+     if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || (params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE))

I see the original if statement had double parentheses, which looks
strange. Should this if (and the one below) be:

         if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || (params.guest_len + offset) > PAGE_SIZE)

Isn't the order of operations here: '+' and then '>'. So is the patch
correct and matches the old conditional? I am fine adding additional

But what was the purpose of them in the old conditional? They weren't
necessary.

But, yes, that order of operations is correct and those are both before
'||'. So the extra parentheses around the second condition check are still
strange then, right?

Given that, then:

	if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE)

() for clarity though.

I do like the look and clarity of the parentheses around the addition.

Thanks,
Tom



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux