On Wednesday 09 September 2015 16:06:01 Jon Hunter wrote:
> +
> + idata = kcalloc(mcci.num_of_cmds, sizeof(*idata), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!idata) {
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + goto cmd_err;
> + }
> +
> + cmds = (struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user *)(unsigned long)mcci.cmds_ptr;
> + for (n_cmds = 0; n_cmds < mcci.num_of_cmds; n_cmds++) {
> + idata[n_cmds] = mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_from_user(&cmds[n_cmds]);
> + if (IS_ERR(idata[n_cmds])) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(idata[n_cmds]);
> + goto cmd_err;
> + }
> + }
> +
You have no upper bound on the number of commands, which means you end
up catching overly large arguments only through -ENOMEM. Can you come
up with an upper bound that is guaranteed to succeed with the allocation?
Or would it be possible to process the user data one at a time while
going through the commands?
> +struct mmc_ioc_multi_cmd {
> + __u64 cmds_ptr;
> + uint8_t num_of_cmds;
> +};
complex commands are always nasty in one way or another. Can you describe
in the patch description why you picked an indirect pointer over something
like
struct mmc_ioc_multi_cmd {
__u64 num_of_cmds;
struct mmc_ioc_cmd cmds[0];
};
as I said, both are ugly. My first choice would have been the other one,
but I'm sure you have some reasons yourself.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
