qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qxl: add sanity check


From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qxl: add sanity check
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:32:13 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131118 Thunderbird/17.0.11

On 02/19/14 11:40, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <address@hidden>
> ---
>  hw/display/qxl.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/display/qxl.c b/hw/display/qxl.c
> index 1471cc0..2a559eb 100644
> --- a/hw/display/qxl.c
> +++ b/hw/display/qxl.c
> @@ -1429,7 +1429,7 @@ static int qxl_destroy_primary(PCIQXLDevice *d, 
> qxl_async_io async)
>      return 1;
>  }
>  
> -static void qxl_set_mode(PCIQXLDevice *d, int modenr, int loadvm)
> +static void qxl_set_mode(PCIQXLDevice *d, unsigned int modenr, int loadvm)
>  {
>      pcibus_t start = d->pci.io_regions[QXL_RAM_RANGE_INDEX].addr;
>      pcibus_t end   = d->pci.io_regions[QXL_RAM_RANGE_INDEX].size + start;
> @@ -1439,6 +1439,12 @@ static void qxl_set_mode(PCIQXLDevice *d, int modenr, 
> int loadvm)
>          .mem_start = start,
>          .mem_end = end
>      };
> +
> +    if (modenr >= d->modes->n_modes) {
> +        qxl_set_guest_bug(d, "mode number out of range");
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
>      QXLSurfaceCreate surface = {
>          .width      = mode->x_res,
>          .height     = mode->y_res,
> 

Well, if I want to obsess about standards conformance, this is too late,
because the initialization of the "mode" pointer a bit higher up:

    QXLMode *mode = d->modes->modes + modenr;

already invokes undefined behavior, when modenr is out of range.

In practice, meh -- the check is done early enough to prevent
dereferencing the (already undefined) pointer.

I also guess gcc is *not* smart enough to derive the undefined-ness as
soon as we do the wrong initialization. (Because if it were smart enough
to see that, then it would compile the check you're adding into
"constant false".)

Also, isn't this CVE material?...

Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]