lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Coverity: zram_recompress(): OVERRUN
    On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 09:42:38AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
    > On (22/11/11 09:37), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
    > > On (22/11/10 08:47), coverity-bot wrote:
    > > [..]
    > > > 1704 class_index_old = zs_lookup_class_index(zram->mem_pool, comp_len_old);
    > > > 1705 /*
    > > > 1706 * Iterate the secondary comp algorithms list (in order of priority)
    > > > 1707 * and try to recompress the page.
    > > > 1708 */
    > > > 1709 for (; prio < prio_max; prio++) {
    > > > vvv CID 1527270: (OVERRUN)
    > > > vvv Overrunning array "zram->comps" of 4 8-byte elements at element index 4 (byte offset 39) using index "prio" (which evaluates to 4).
    > > > 1710 if (!zram->comps[prio])
    > > > 1711 continue;
    > > > 1712
    > > > 1713 /*
    > > > 1714 * Skip if the object is already re-compressed with a higher
    > > > 1715 * priority algorithm (or same algorithm).
    > >
    > > prio_max is always limited and max value it can have is 4 (ZRAM_MAX_COMPS).
    > > Depending on use case we can limit prio_max even to lower values.
    > >
    > > So we have
    > >
    > > for (; prio < 4; prio++) {
    > > foo = comps[prio];
    > > }
    > >
    > > I don't see how prio can be 4 inside of this loop.
    >
    > Kees, if we do something like this will it make coverity happy?
    >
    > ---
    >
    > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
    > index 9d33801e8ba8..e67a124f2e88 100644
    > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
    > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
    > @@ -1706,6 +1706,7 @@ static int zram_recompress(struct zram *zram, u32 index, struct page *page,
    > * Iterate the secondary comp algorithms list (in order of priority)
    > * and try to recompress the page.
    > */
    > + prio_max = min(prio_max, ZRAM_MAX_COMPS);
    > for (; prio < prio_max; prio++) {
    > if (!zram->comps[prio])
    > continue;

    It would, but given this is a clear false positive, don't feel the need
    to add this just for Coverity's sake. It is a nice bit of added
    robustness, but I leave that decision up to you! :)

    --
    Kees Cook

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-11-11 04:16    [W:4.336 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site