On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:20 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:02:41PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:35 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > If bytes is larger than EC_MEMMAP_SIZE (255) then "EC_MEMMAP_SIZE -
> > > bytes" is a very high unsigned value and basically offset is
> > > accepted. The second problem is that it uses >= instead of > so this
> > > means that we are not able to read the very last byte.
> > >
> > > Fixes: ec2f33ab582b ("platform/chrome: Add cros_ec_lpc driver for x86 devices")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lpc.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lpc.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lpc.c
> > > index d6306d2a096f..7e1d175def9f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lpc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lpc.c
> > > @@ -290,7 +290,8 @@ static int cros_ec_lpc_readmem(struct cros_ec_device *ec, unsigned int offset,
> > > char *s = dest;
> > > int cnt = 0;
> > >
> > > - if (offset >= EC_MEMMAP_SIZE - bytes)
> > > + if (offset > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE ||
> > > + bytes > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE - offset)
> >
> > I think that means we have the same problem if offset >
> > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE, only now that condition isn't detected anymore because
> > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE - offset is a very large number.
>
> That's the bug which my patch addresses. (My patch is option 1).
>
Ah yes, for some reason I overlooked the "offset > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE"
part in your patch. Sorry, I must have been blind.
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <groeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Guenter
> > I think what we really want is
> > if (offset + bytes > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE)
> > only without the overflow. Not sure how we can get there without
> > checking each part.
> > if (offset > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE || bytes > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE || bytes
> > + offset > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE)
>
> That is another solution which works.
>
> > return -EINVAL;
> > Maybe that ?
> > if ((u64) offset + bytes > EC_MEMMAP_SIZE)
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> A third viable solution.
>
> I generally prefer option 2 to option 3. I generally use that in code
> that I'm writing. There was one time Linus said he liked option 1
> which I used here because it works regardless of the types or the valu
> of EC_MEMMAP_SIZE. This code already used the bytes > size - offset
> idiom so I kept it as similar as possible.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
