> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:31 AM Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Kyle Spiers wrote: > > > > > > > >> As part of the effort to remove VLAs from the kernel[1], this creates > > > >> constants for the checksum lengths of CCITT and 8B2C and changes > > > >> crc_calculated to be the maximum size of a checksum. > > > >> > > > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621 > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Kyle Spiers <ksspi...@google.com> > > > >> --- > > > >> drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c | 11 +++++++++-- > > > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c b/drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c > > > >> index 5c858e784a89..99fa482419f9 100644 > > > >> --- a/drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c > > > >> +++ b/drivers/mfd/rave-sp.c > > > >> @@ -45,7 +45,9 @@ > > > >> #define RAVE_SP_DLE 0x10 > > > >> > > > >> #define RAVE_SP_MAX_DATA_SIZE 64 > > > >> -#define RAVE_SP_CHECKSUM_SIZE 2 /* Worst case > scenario on RDU2 */ > > > >> +#define RAVE_SP_CHECKSUM_8B2C 1 > > > >> +#define RAVE_SP_CHECKSUM_CCITT 2 > > > >> +#define RAVE_SP_CHECKSUM_SIZE RAVE_SP_CHECKSUM_CCITT > > > >> /* > > > >> * We don't store STX, ETX and unescaped bytes, so Rx is only > > > >> * DATA + CSUM > > > >> @@ -415,7 +417,12 @@ static void rave_sp_receive_frame(struct > rave_sp *sp, > > > >> const size_t payload_length = length - checksum_length; > > > >> const u8 *crc_reported = &data[payload_length]; > > > >> struct device *dev = &sp->serdev->dev; > > > >> - u8 crc_calculated[checksum_length]; > > > >> + u8 crc_calculated[RAVE_SP_CHECKSUM_SIZE]; > > > >> + > > > >> + if (unlikely(length > sizeof(crc_calculated))) { > > > > > > > > Forgive me if I have this wrong (it's still very early here), but this > > > > doesn't leave any room for the payload? > > > > > > > > <-- length --> > > > > <ck len><- payload length -> > > > > [CK][CK][D][A][T][A] .. [64] > > > > > > > > It is my hope that length would always be larger than the size of the > > > > checksum, or else there would never be any data? > > > > > > > > Should this not be: > > > > > > > > if (unlikely(length > RAVE_SP_MAX_DATA_SIZE)) > > > > > > Oh, whoops, no, this should be: > > > > > > + if (unlikely(checksum_lengh > sizeof(crc_calculated))) { > > > > > > (To validate the VLA max size.) > > > That doesn't match the OP's error message though: > > > dev_warn(dev, "Dropping oversized frame\n"); > > > Which I assume is designed to complement the existing warning: > > > if (unlikely(length <= checksum_length)) > > dev_warn(dev, "Dropping short frame\n");
[MOVING - Please don't top post - reply in-line] > The error message is also wrong. Would "Checksum length too large" be fine? "Checksum too long, dropping" ? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog