On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:56:51 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The previous patch introduced very large kernel stack usage and a Makefile > change to hide the warning about it. > > From what I can tell, a number of things went wrong here: > > - The BCH_MAX_T constant was set to the maximum value for 'n', > not the maximum for 't', which is much smaller. > > - The stack usage is actually larger than the entire kernel stack > on some architectures that can use 4KB stacks (m68k, sh, c6x), which > leads to an immediate overrun. > > - The justification in the patch description claimed that nothing > changed, however that is not the case even without the two points above: > the configuration is machine specific, and most boards never use the > maximum BCH_ECC_WORDS() length but instead have something much smaller. > That maximum would only apply to machines that use both the maximum > block size and the maximum ECC strength. > > The largest value for 't' that I could find is '32', which in turn leads > to a 60 byte array instead of 2048 bytes. With that changed, the warning > can be enabled again. > > Fixes: 02361bc77888 ("lib/bch: Remove VLA usage") > Reported-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > --- > Please review carefully to ensure my logic is correct. I spent a > long time trying to understand what is going on here, but I'm not > too familiar with this algorithm, and it's possible I still got it > wrong as well. > In particular, I'm not 100% sure if '32' is the maximum ECC strength > we can support, or if a larger one (which?) might be possible. Well, the ECC strength (T) is dynamically configurable through the nand-ecc-strength param, so it's theoretically not limited to 32. This being said, I doubt people are using soft BCH with more strength higher than 32. > --- > lib/Makefile | 1 - > lib/bch.c | 10 ++++++---- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile > index 8c9647fa271a..12c479dd46e0 100644 > --- a/lib/Makefile > +++ b/lib/Makefile > @@ -122,7 +122,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ZLIB_INFLATE) += zlib_inflate/ > obj-$(CONFIG_ZLIB_DEFLATE) += zlib_deflate/ > obj-$(CONFIG_REED_SOLOMON) += reed_solomon/ > obj-$(CONFIG_BCH) += bch.o > -CFLAGS_bch.o := $(call cc-option,-Wframe-larger-than=4500) > obj-$(CONFIG_LZO_COMPRESS) += lzo/ > obj-$(CONFIG_LZO_DECOMPRESS) += lzo/ > obj-$(CONFIG_LZ4_COMPRESS) += lz4/ > diff --git a/lib/bch.c b/lib/bch.c > index 7b0f2006698b..3ef1a3467e7b 100644 > --- a/lib/bch.c > +++ b/lib/bch.c > @@ -79,20 +79,19 @@ > #define GF_T(_p) (CONFIG_BCH_CONST_T) > #define GF_N(_p) ((1 << (CONFIG_BCH_CONST_M))-1) > #define BCH_MAX_M (CONFIG_BCH_CONST_M) > +#define BCH_MAX_T (CONFIG_BCH_CONST_T) > #else > #define GF_M(_p) ((_p)->m) > #define GF_T(_p) ((_p)->t) > #define GF_N(_p) ((_p)->n) > -#define BCH_MAX_M 15 > +#define BCH_MAX_M 15 /* 2KB */ > +#define BCH_MAX_T 32 /* 32 bit correction */ I'd recommend adding a test on t here [1] (t > BCH_MAX_T), so that you fail at init time if t is too big. [1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.19-rc6/source/lib/bch.c#L1280 > #endif > > -#define BCH_MAX_T (((1 << BCH_MAX_M) - 1) / BCH_MAX_M) > - > #define BCH_ECC_WORDS(_p) DIV_ROUND_UP(GF_M(_p)*GF_T(_p), 32) > #define BCH_ECC_BYTES(_p) DIV_ROUND_UP(GF_M(_p)*GF_T(_p), 8) > > #define BCH_ECC_MAX_WORDS DIV_ROUND_UP(BCH_MAX_M * BCH_MAX_T, 32) > -#define BCH_ECC_MAX_BYTES DIV_ROUND_UP(BCH_MAX_M * BCH_MAX_T, 8) > > #ifndef dbg > #define dbg(_fmt, args...) do {} while (0) > @@ -202,6 +201,9 @@ void encode_bch(struct bch_control *bch, const uint8_t *data, > const uint32_t * const tab3 = tab2 + 256*(l+1); > const uint32_t *pdata, *p0, *p1, *p2, *p3; > > + if (WARN_ON(r_bytes > sizeof(r))) > + return; > + > if (ecc) { > /* load ecc parity bytes into internal 32-bit buffer */ > load_ecc8(bch, bch->ecc_buf, ecc); ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/