On 04/13/2018 08:07 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Smatch report several issues with bad __user annotations:
>
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:447:21: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:447:21: expected void [noderef] <asn:1>*uptr
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:447:21: got void *<noident>
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:621:21: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:621:21: expected void const volatile [noderef] <asn:1>*<noident>
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:621:21: got struct v4l2_plane [noderef] <asn:1>**<noident>
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:693:13: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:693:13: expected void [noderef] <asn:1>*uptr
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:693:13: got void *[assigned] base
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:871:13: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:871:13: expected struct v4l2_ext_control [noderef] <asn:1>*kcontrols
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:871:13: got struct v4l2_ext_control *<noident>
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:957:13: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:957:13: expected unsigned char [usertype] *__pu_val
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:957:13: got void [noderef] <asn:1>*
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:973:13: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:973:13: expected void [noderef] <asn:1>*uptr
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c:973:13: got void *[assigned] edid
>
> Fix them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c | 32 ++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c
> index d03a44d89649..0b9dfe7dbfe7 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/v4l2-compat-ioctl32.c
> @@ -443,8 +443,8 @@ static int put_v4l2_plane32(struct v4l2_plane __user *up,
> return -EFAULT;
> break;
> case V4L2_MEMORY_USERPTR:
> - if (get_user(p, &up->m.userptr) ||
> - put_user((compat_ulong_t)ptr_to_compat((__force void *)p),
> + if (get_user(p, &up->m.userptr)||
> + put_user((compat_ulong_t)ptr_to_compat((void __user *)p),
> &up32->m.userptr))
> return -EFAULT;
> break;
> @@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ static int put_v4l2_buffer32(struct v4l2_buffer __user *kp,
> u32 length;
> enum v4l2_memory memory;
> struct v4l2_plane32 __user *uplane32;
> - struct v4l2_plane __user *uplane;
> + struct v4l2_plane *uplane;
This needs a comment (either here or before the get_user below). It really is a
pointer to userspace, but since videodev2.h has it without __user (since it is
copied to kernel space in v4l2-ioctl.c) we need to define it as a regular pointer
here and cast it to a __user pointer in the put_v4l2_plane32() call.
This is not trivially obvious, so a comment would help a lot.
> compat_caddr_t p;
> int ret;
>
> @@ -617,15 +617,14 @@ static int put_v4l2_buffer32(struct v4l2_buffer __user *kp,
>
> if (num_planes == 0)
> return 0;
> -
> - if (get_user(uplane, ((__force struct v4l2_plane __user **)&kp->m.planes)))
> + if (get_user(uplane, &kp->m.planes))
> return -EFAULT;
> if (get_user(p, &up->m.planes))
> return -EFAULT;
> uplane32 = compat_ptr(p);
>
> while (num_planes--) {
> - ret = put_v4l2_plane32(uplane, uplane32, memory);
> + ret = put_v4l2_plane32((void __user *)uplane, uplane32, memory);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> ++uplane;
> @@ -675,7 +674,7 @@ static int get_v4l2_framebuffer32(struct v4l2_framebuffer __user *kp,
>
> if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, up, sizeof(*up)) ||
> get_user(tmp, &up->base) ||
> - put_user((__force void *)compat_ptr(tmp), &kp->base) ||
> + put_user((void __force *)compat_ptr(tmp), &kp->base) ||
> assign_in_user(&kp->capability, &up->capability) ||
> assign_in_user(&kp->flags, &up->flags) ||
> copy_in_user(&kp->fmt, &up->fmt, sizeof(kp->fmt)))
> @@ -690,7 +689,7 @@ static int put_v4l2_framebuffer32(struct v4l2_framebuffer __user *kp,
>
> if (!access_ok(VERIFY_WRITE, up, sizeof(*up)) ||
> get_user(base, &kp->base) ||
> - put_user(ptr_to_compat(base), &up->base) ||
> + put_user(ptr_to_compat((void __user *)base), &up->base) ||
> assign_in_user(&up->capability, &kp->capability) ||
> assign_in_user(&up->flags, &kp->flags) ||
> copy_in_user(&up->fmt, &kp->fmt, sizeof(kp->fmt)))
> @@ -857,7 +856,7 @@ static int put_v4l2_ext_controls32(struct file *file,
> struct v4l2_ext_controls32 __user *up)
> {
> struct v4l2_ext_control32 __user *ucontrols;
> - struct v4l2_ext_control __user *kcontrols;
> + struct v4l2_ext_control *kcontrols;
> u32 count;
> u32 n;
> compat_caddr_t p;
> @@ -883,10 +882,12 @@ static int put_v4l2_ext_controls32(struct file *file,
> unsigned int size = sizeof(*ucontrols);
> u32 id;
>
> - if (get_user(id, &kcontrols->id) ||
> + if (get_user(id, (unsigned int __user *)&kcontrols->id) ||
> put_user(id, &ucontrols->id) ||
> - assign_in_user(&ucontrols->size, &kcontrols->size) ||
> - copy_in_user(&ucontrols->reserved2, &kcontrols->reserved2,
> + assign_in_user(&ucontrols->size,
> + (unsigned int __user *)&kcontrols->size) ||
> + copy_in_user(&ucontrols->reserved2,
> + (unsigned int __user *)&kcontrols->reserved2,
> sizeof(ucontrols->reserved2)))
> return -EFAULT;
>
> @@ -898,7 +899,8 @@ static int put_v4l2_ext_controls32(struct file *file,
> if (ctrl_is_pointer(file, id))
> size -= sizeof(ucontrols->value64);
>
> - if (copy_in_user(ucontrols, kcontrols, size))
> + if (copy_in_user(ucontrols,
> + (unsigned int __user *)kcontrols, size))
This is rather ugly. Would it be better to do something like this:
struct v4l2_ext_control __user *kcontrols
struct v4l2_ext_control *kcontrols_tmp;
get_user(kcontrols_tmp, &kp->controls);
kcontrols = (void __user __force *)kcontrols_tmp;
And then there is no need to change anything else.
Regardless of the chosen solution, this needs comments to explain what is going
on here, just as with v4l2_buffer above.
Note: the whole 'u<foo>' and 'k<foo>' naming is now hopelessly out of date and
confusing. It should really be '<foo>32' and '<foo>64' to denote 32 bit vs
64 bit layout. The pointers are now always in userspace, so 'k<foo>' no longer
makes sense.
> return -EFAULT;
>
> ucontrols++;
> @@ -954,7 +956,7 @@ static int get_v4l2_edid32(struct v4l2_edid __user *kp,
> assign_in_user(&kp->start_block, &up->start_block) ||
> assign_in_user(&kp->blocks, &up->blocks) ||
> get_user(tmp, &up->edid) ||
> - put_user(compat_ptr(tmp), &kp->edid) ||
> + put_user((void __force *)compat_ptr(tmp), &kp->edid) ||
> copy_in_user(kp->reserved, up->reserved, sizeof(kp->reserved)))
> return -EFAULT;
> return 0;
> @@ -970,7 +972,7 @@ static int put_v4l2_edid32(struct v4l2_edid __user *kp,
> assign_in_user(&up->start_block, &kp->start_block) ||
> assign_in_user(&up->blocks, &kp->blocks) ||
> get_user(edid, &kp->edid) ||
> - put_user(ptr_to_compat(edid), &up->edid) ||
> + put_user(ptr_to_compat((void __user *)edid), &up->edid) ||
> copy_in_user(up->reserved, kp->reserved, sizeof(up->reserved)))
> return -EFAULT;
> return 0;
>
Otherwise this patch looks good.
Regards,
Hans
