| Message ID | 20181008191712.GA12892@embeddedor.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Herbert Xu |
| Headers | show |
| Series | crypto: inside-secure: safexcel - fix memory allocation | expand |
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: > The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE > *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be > sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req). > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable") > Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance") > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Luckily, this results in the same size, since it's still a pointer: struct crypto_async_request **rdr_req; But yes, it should be fixed. -Kees > --- > drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c > index 86c699c1..bc6c5cb 100644 > --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c > +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c > @@ -1066,7 +1066,7 @@ static int safexcel_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > priv->ring[i].rdr_req = devm_kcalloc(dev, > EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE, > - sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req), > + sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req), > GFP_KERNEL); > if (!priv->ring[i].rdr_req) { > ret = -ENOMEM; > -- > 2.7.4 >
Hi Gustavo, On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 09:17:12PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE > *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be > sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req). > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable") > Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance") > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> Acked-by: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@bootlin.com> Good catch, thanks! Antoine > --- > drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c > index 86c699c1..bc6c5cb 100644 > --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c > +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c > @@ -1066,7 +1066,7 @@ static int safexcel_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > priv->ring[i].rdr_req = devm_kcalloc(dev, > EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE, > - sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req), > + sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req), > GFP_KERNEL); > if (!priv->ring[i].rdr_req) { > ret = -ENOMEM; > -- > 2.7.4 >
Hi all, On 10/9/18 12:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva > <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: >> The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE >> *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be >> sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req). >> >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable") >> Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance") >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > Friendly ping. Who can take this? Thanks! -- Gustavo
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hi all, > > On 10/9/18 12:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva > > <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: > >> The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE > >> *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be > >> sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req). > >> > >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable") > >> Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance") > >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > > > > Friendly ping. Who can take this? Well I tried to take it but it doesn't apply against cryptodev. So I presume this can go into the tree that carried the change which it depended on? Cheers,
Hi, On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:17:41PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > On 10/9/18 12:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva > > > <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: > > >> The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE > > >> *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be > > >> sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req). > > >> > > >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable") > > >> Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance") > > >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > > Friendly ping. Who can take this? > > Well I tried to take it but it doesn't apply against cryptodev. > So I presume this can go into the tree that carried the change > which it depended on? I would say this should go in cryptodev. The issue is probably because of other changes that got applied in the meantime. Gustavo can probably rebase his patch on top of cryptodev, and re-send it. Thanks! Antoine
On 10/17/18 9:20 AM, Antoine Tenart wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:17:41PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>> On 10/9/18 12:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva >>>> <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: >>>>> The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE >>>>> *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be >>>>> sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req). >>>>> >>>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable") >>>>> Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Friendly ping. Who can take this? >> >> Well I tried to take it but it doesn't apply against cryptodev. >> So I presume this can go into the tree that carried the change >> which it depended on? > > I would say this should go in cryptodev. The issue is probably because > of other changes that got applied in the meantime. Gustavo can probably > rebase his patch on top of cryptodev, and re-send it. > cryptodev is missing the previous commit 329e09893909d409039f6a79757d9b80b67efe39 to which this patch applies. Kees, did you apply the commit above to your tree? If so, could you take this patch? Thanks -- Gustavo
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: > > > On 10/17/18 9:20 AM, Antoine Tenart wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:17:41PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>>> On 10/9/18 12:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva >>>>> <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: >>>>>> The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE >>>>>> *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be >>>>>> sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req). >>>>>> >>>>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable") >>>>>> Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance") >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Friendly ping. Who can take this? >>> >>> Well I tried to take it but it doesn't apply against cryptodev. >>> So I presume this can go into the tree that carried the change >>> which it depended on? >> >> I would say this should go in cryptodev. The issue is probably because >> of other changes that got applied in the meantime. Gustavo can probably >> rebase his patch on top of cryptodev, and re-send it. >> > > cryptodev is missing the previous commit 329e09893909d409039f6a79757d9b80b67efe39 > to which this patch applies. > > Kees, did you apply the commit above to your tree? > > If so, could you take this patch? Since this has no functional exposure (the sizes are the same), let's just wait until after the merge window to get this into crypto-next. -Kees
On 10/17/18 8:23 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> If so, could you take this patch? > > Since this has no functional exposure (the sizes are the same), let's > just wait until after the merge window to get this into crypto-next. > Okay. I agree. Thanks! -- Gustavo
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c index 86c699c1..bc6c5cb 100644 --- a/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c +++ b/drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c @@ -1066,7 +1066,7 @@ static int safexcel_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) priv->ring[i].rdr_req = devm_kcalloc(dev, EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE, - sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req), + sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req), GFP_KERNEL); if (!priv->ring[i].rdr_req) { ret = -ENOMEM;
The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req). Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable") Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> --- drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)