> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 4:46 AM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>;
> linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo()
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 08:25:05PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-rdma-
> > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Dan Carpenter
> > > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 12:55 PM
> > > To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jason Gunthorpe
> > > <jgg@xxxxxxxx>; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo()
> > >
> > > My static checker complains that these "vf" variables come from the
> > > user in
> > > do_setvfinfo() and haven't been checked to make sure they're valid.
> > >
> > > Fixes: eff901d30e6c ("IB/mlx5: Implement callbacks for manipulating
> > > VFs")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Untested static checker stuff. Please review carefully.
> > >
> > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c
> > > b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c
> > > index 649a3364f838..9a8eebe3d462 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/ib_virt.c
> > > @@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ int mlx5_ib_get_vf_config(struct ib_device
> > > *device, int vf, u8 port,
> > > struct mlx5_hca_vport_context *rep;
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > + if (vf < 0 || vf >= pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(mdev->pdev))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > I traced back ndo_get_vf_config and friend functions. vf number is u32
> from user space.
> >
> > And all the VF operations at ndo ops level and at driver level should be
> changed from int to u32.
> > After that vf < 0 check is not needed.
> >
>
> I've been thinking about this and I don't think it's a good idea. It just makes
> backporting the fix a lot more complicated. It might be a good idea as a
> cleanup later though.
>
Data type correction I think is common approach. I have seen int to bool changes.
Regarding this fix, I am saying if vf index is negative (as very large positive number for fw), it will get failed anyway when its > total_num_vfs.
Do you see any error by passing large number currently which desires this patch or just the static checker?
If it is static checker, I would prefer we fix the datatype..
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
