Hi Robin,
On 2026-07-16 at 14:48:25 +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 13/07/2026 10:58 am, Krzysztof Karas wrote:
> > It is possible, when a very large mapping uses only one
> > scatterlist, that padding overflows scatterlist's length field.
> > This results in:
> > 1) silently wrapping the value
> > 2) smaller than desired mappings produced by iommu_map_sg
> > 3) leaving mapped bytes in memory (no iommu_unmap)
> >
> > Address this issue by adding overflow detection for scatterlist
> > length field.
> >
> > Fixes: 809eac54cdd6 ("iommu/dma: Implement scatterlist segment merging")
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Karas <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > v3:
> > * Used check_add_overflow suggested by Jason.
> >
> > I decided not to include previous r-bs due to the change in the
> > core of this patch: overflows_type -> check_add_overflow and I
> > obvserved some folks have heavy preference for one or the other.
> >
> > drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
> > index 381b60d9e7ce..1a36fd9bf10b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/dma-iommu.c
> > @@ -1493,7 +1493,18 @@ int iommu_dma_map_sg(struct device *dev, struct
> > scatterlist *sg, int nents,
> > * time through here (i.e. before it has a meaningful value).
> > */
>
> Sorry to be a pain,
Don't be! I'm glad you got some time to look at this again and
being a pain is what gives us quality code.
> but since we *have* now spent the time reasoning through
> the details, for completeness I think it would be worth also explicitly
> checking "s_length & UINT_MAX != 0" (or equivalent) after the the prior
> iova_align() - since that's only rounding up an unsigned int value to a
> power of 2 it can't arbitrarily overflow like the addition below, but it
> could still wrap to zero in the assignment to s->length, or indeed in the
> size_t itself on 32-bit.
>
> > if (pad_len && pad_len < s_length - 1) {
> > - prev->length += pad_len;
> > + unsigned int new_pad_len;
>
> Super-nit: "pad_len" is the amount of potential padding from the end of the
> previous segment up to the next segment boundary; the value we're
> calculating here is the updated *total* segment length, so "new_prev_len"
> would be more accurate and a bit clearer - the logic here is fiddly enough
> as it is, so every little helps :)
Both suggestions sound reasonable, I'll include them in the next
version then.
>
> With those tweaks (since it sounds like there's still another respin or two
> to go for the rest of the series anyway),
>
> Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <[email protected]>
Thanks!
--
Best Regards,
Krzysztof
