How about something like the untested attached? Thanks, Avri
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bean Huo <huob...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 2:36 PM
> To: Avri Altman <avri.alt...@wdc.com>; alim.akh...@samsung.com;
> asuto...@codeaurora.org; j...@linux.ibm.com;
> martin.peter...@oracle.com; stanley....@mediatek.com;
> bean...@micron.com; bvanass...@acm.org; tomas.wink...@intel.com;
> c...@codeaurora.org
> Cc: linux-s...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] scsi: ufs: fix potential access NULL pointer while
> memcpy
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Western Digital. Do not click
> on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that
> the content is safe.
>
>
> hi Avri
> thanks review.
>
>
> On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 06:25 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > If param_offset is not 0, the memcpy length shouldn't be the
> > > true descriptor length.
> > >
> > > Fixes: a4b0e8a4e92b ("scsi: ufs: Factor out
> > > ufshcd_read_desc_param")
> > > Signed-off-by: Bean Huo <bean...@micron.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > index f7e8bfefe3d4..bc52a0e89cd3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> > > @@ -3211,7 +3211,7 @@ int ufshcd_read_desc_param(struct ufs_hba
> > > *hba,
> > >
> > > /* Check wherher we will not copy more data, than available
> > > */
> > > if (is_kmalloc && param_size > buff_len)
> > > - param_size = buff_len;
> > > + param_size = buff_len - param_offset;
> >
> > But Is_kmalloc is true if (param_offset != 0 || param_size <
> > buff_len)
> > So if (is_kmalloc && param_size > buff_len) implies that
> > param_offset is 0,
> > Or did I get it wrong?
>
> If param_offset is 0, This willn't get any wrong, after this patch, it
> is the same since offset is 0. As mentioned in the commit message, this
> patch is only for the case of param_offset is not 0.
>
> >
> > Still, I think that there is a problem here because nowhere we are
> > checking that
> > param_offset + param_size < buff_len, which now can happen because of
> > ufs-bsg.
> > Maybe you can add it and get rid of that is_kmalloc which is an
> > awkward way to test for valid values?
>
> let me explain further:
> we have these conditinos:
>
> 1) param_offset == 0, param_size >= buff_len;//no problem,
> ufshcd_query_descriptor_retry() will read descripor with true
> descriptor length, and no memcpy() called.
>
>
> 2) param_offset == 0, param_size < buff_len;// no problem,
> ufshcd_query_descriptor_retry() will read descripor with true
> descriptor length buff_len, and memcpy() with param_size length.
>
>
> 3) param_offset != 0, param_offset + param_size <= buff_len;// no
> problem, ufshcd_query_descriptor_retry() will read descripor with true
> descriptor length, and memcpy() with param_size length.
>
>
> 4) param_offset != 0, param_offset + param_size > buff_len;// NULL
> pointer reference problem, since ufshcd_query_descriptor_retry() will
> read descripor with true descriptor length, and memcpy() with buff_len
> length. correct memcpy length should be (buff_len - param_offset)
>
> param_offset + param_size < buff_len doesn't need to add, and
> is_kmalloc is very hard to be removed based on current flow.
>
> so, the correct fixup patch shoulbe be like this:
>
>
> -if (is_kmalloc && param_size > buff_len)
> - param_size = buff_len
> +if (is_kmalloc && (param_size + param_offset) > buff_len)
> + param_size = buff_len - param_offset;
>
>
> how do you think about it? if no problem, I will update it in next
> version patch.
>
> thanks,
>
> Bean
0001-scsi-ufshcd-Simplify-ufshcd_read_desc_param.patch
Description: 0001-scsi-ufshcd-Simplify-ufshcd_read_desc_param.patch
