qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH 2/4] hw/misc/bcm2835_property: Avoid overflow in OTP access p


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] hw/misc/bcm2835_property: Avoid overflow in OTP access properties
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:57:57 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 24/7/24 14:31, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 08:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:

Hi Peter,

On 23/7/24 15:10, Peter Maydell wrote:
Coverity points out that in our handling of the property
RPI_FWREQ_SET_CUSTOMER_OTP we have a potential overflow.  This
happens because we read start_num and number from the guest as
unsigned 32 bit integers, but then the variable 'n' we use as a loop
counter as we iterate from start_num to start_num + number is only an
"int".  That means that if the guest passes us a very large start_num
we will interpret it as negative.  This will result in an assertion
failure inside bcm2835_otp_set_row(), which checks that we didn't
pass it an invalid row number.

A similar issue applies to all the properties for accessing OTP rows
where we are iterating through with a start and length read from the
guest.

Use uint32_t for the loop counter to avoid this problem. Because in
all cases 'n' is only used as a loop counter, we can do this as
part of the for(), restricting its scope to exactly where we need it.

Resolves: Coverity CID 1549401
Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>

---
   hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c | 9 ++++-----
   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c b/hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c
index e28fdca9846..7eb623b4e90 100644
--- a/hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c
+++ b/hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c
@@ -30,7 +30,6 @@ static void bcm2835_property_mbox_push(BCM2835PropertyState 
*s, uint32_t value)
       uint32_t tot_len;
       size_t resplen;
       uint32_t tmp;
-    int n;
       uint32_t start_num, number, otp_row;

       /*
@@ -337,7 +336,7 @@ static void bcm2835_property_mbox_push(BCM2835PropertyState 
*s, uint32_t value)

               resplen = 8 + 4 * number;

-            for (n = start_num; n < start_num + number &&
+            for (uint32_t n = start_num; n < start_num + number &&
                    n < BCM2835_OTP_CUSTOMER_OTP_LEN; n++) {

I find not making the counter size explicit and use 'unsigned'
simpler, since using 32-bit in particular doesn't bring much here.
Is there a reason I'm missing?

I just wanted to match the types between n and start_num and
number (where the latter two should be uint32_t because we load
them from the guest as 32-bit values). Otherwise we're relying
on "unsigned" being at least 32 bit -- it is, but if we need
it to be 32 bit then why not use the type that is guaranteed
and says specifically that it's 32 bits ?

Yes OK no problem.



reply via email to

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