On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:34:42PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:32:09PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > @@ -303,7 +304,13 @@ static int process_tar_file(struct device *dev,
> > if (get_ucode_type(ucode_hdr, &ucode_type))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - ucode_size = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length) * 2;
> > + code_length = ntohl(ucode_hdr->code_length);
> > + if (code_length >= INT_MAX / 2) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Invalid code_length %u\n", code_length);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ucode_size = code_length * 2;
> > if (!ucode_size || (size < round_up(ucode_size, 16) +
> > sizeof(struct otx_cpt_ucode_hdr) + OTX_CPT_UCODE_SIGN_LEN)) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Ucode %s invalid size\n", filename);
>
> How come you didn't add a "ucode_size > size" check like you did
> below?
>
I'm really sorry. This was not my best work at all. The ucode_size
was a mistake. It should have just been the check against INT_MAX.
regards,
dan carpenter
