Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sun, 24 May 2020 17:08:23 -0700 | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] vt: keyboard: avoid integer overflow in k_ascii |
| |
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:09:35PM +0000, Kyungtae Kim wrote: > @@ -884,8 +884,11 @@ static void k_ascii(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag) > > if (npadch == -1) > npadch = value; > + else if (!check_mul_overflow(npadch, base, &new_npadch) && > + !check_add_overflow(new_npadch, value, &new_npadch)) > + npadch = new_npadch; > else > - npadch = npadch * base + value; > + return; > }
So thinking about it some more, if we use unsigned types, then there is no issue with overflow UB, and thus maybe we should do something like this:
diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c b/drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c index 15d33fa0c925..568b2171f335 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c +++ b/drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c @@ -127,7 +127,11 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(func_buf_lock); /* guard 'func_buf' and friends */ static unsigned long key_down[BITS_TO_LONGS(KEY_CNT)]; /* keyboard key bitmap */ static unsigned char shift_down[NR_SHIFT]; /* shift state counters.. */ static bool dead_key_next; -static int npadch = -1; /* -1 or number assembled on pad */ + +/* Handles a number being assembled on the number pad */ +static bool npadch_active; +static unsigned int npadch_value; + static unsigned int diacr; static char rep; /* flag telling character repeat */ @@ -845,12 +849,12 @@ static void k_shift(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag) shift_state &= ~(1 << value); /* kludge */ - if (up_flag && shift_state != old_state && npadch != -1) { + if (up_flag && shift_state != old_state && npadch_active) { if (kbd->kbdmode == VC_UNICODE) - to_utf8(vc, npadch); + to_utf8(vc, npadch_value); else - put_queue(vc, npadch & 0xff); - npadch = -1; + put_queue(vc, npadch_value & 0xff); + npadch_active = false; } } @@ -868,7 +872,7 @@ static void k_meta(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag) static void k_ascii(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag) { - int base; + unsigned int base; if (up_flag) return; @@ -882,10 +886,12 @@ static void k_ascii(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag) base = 16; } - if (npadch == -1) - npadch = value; - else - npadch = npadch * base + value; + if (!npadch_active) { + npadch_value = 0; + npadch_active = true; + } + + npadch_value = npadch_value * base + value; } static void k_lock(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag)
I think if we stop overloading what npadch means, the code becomes more clear. What do you think?
Thanks.
-- Dmitry
| |