On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:02:47AM -0700, Yu Zhe wrote: > "struct_size() + n" may cause a integer overflow, > use size_add() to handle it. > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhe <yuzhe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/cxl/pmem.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pmem.c b/drivers/cxl/pmem.c > index 7dc0a2fa1a6b..8c08aa009a56 100644 > --- a/drivers/cxl/pmem.c > +++ b/drivers/cxl/pmem.c > @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static int cxl_pmem_set_config_data(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, > return -EINVAL; > > /* 4-byte status follows the input data in the payload */ > - if (struct_size(cmd, in_buf, cmd->in_length) + 4 > buf_len) > + if (size_add(struct_size(cmd, in_buf, cmd->in_length), 4) > buf_len) I don't see any benefit here. struct_size() calls __ab_c_size() which already calls check_add_overflow()? So why wrap that in another check? Were you able to get this to fail with some user input? Ira > return -EINVAL; > > set_lsa = > -- > 2.11.0 >
