Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:13:26 -0400 (EDT) | From | Nicolas Pitre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] of: Check for phys_addr_t overflows in early_init_dt_add_memory_arch |
| |
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > The common early_init_dt_add_memory_arch takes the base and size > > of a memory region as u64 types. The function never checks if > > the base and size can actually fit in a phys_addr_t which may > > be smaller than 64-bits. This may result in incorrect memory > > being passed to memblock_add if the memory falls outside the > > range of phys_addr_t. Add range checks for the base and size if > > phys_addr_t is smaller than u64. > > > > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> > > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org> > > --- > > Geert, can you drop my other patch and give this a test to see if it fixes > > your bootup problem? > > > > --- > > drivers/of/fdt.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c > > index c4cddf0..f72132c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c > > +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c > > @@ -880,6 +880,21 @@ void __init __weak early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size) > > const u64 phys_offset = __pa(PAGE_OFFSET); > > base &= PAGE_MASK; > > size &= PAGE_MASK; > > + > > +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT > > + if (base > ULONG_MAX) { > > How about removing the ifdef and doing something like: > > if ((base >> 32) && (sizeof(phys_addr_t) != sizeof(u64)))
That is what I was about to suggest as well. Except that I'd use sizeof(phys_addr_t) < sizeof(u64) just in case.
Nicolas
| |