From: "Zeng, Star" <star.zeng@intel.com>
To: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>, edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: star.zeng@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] MdeModulePkg/PciHostBridge: Enhance boundary check in Io/Mem.Read/Write
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:14:18 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <73f95487-2316-401a-3129-aee0e52eed9f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180921072539.268068-2-ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
Two very small comments are added below.
On 2018/9/21 15:25, Ruiyu Ni wrote:
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> Signed-off-by: Ruiyu Ni <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Star Zeng <star.zeng@intel.com>
> ---
> .../Bus/Pci/PciHostBridgeDxe/PciRootBridgeIo.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciHostBridgeDxe/PciRootBridgeIo.c b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciHostBridgeDxe/PciRootBridgeIo.c
> index f8a1239ceb..0b6b56f846 100644
> --- a/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciHostBridgeDxe/PciRootBridgeIo.c
> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Bus/Pci/PciHostBridgeDxe/PciRootBridgeIo.c
> @@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ RootBridgeIoCheckParameter (
> UINT64 Base;
> UINT64 Limit;
> UINT32 Size;
> + UINT64 Length;
>
> //
> // Check to see if Buffer is NULL
> @@ -337,7 +338,7 @@ RootBridgeIoCheckParameter (
> }
>
> //
> - // For FIFO type, the target address won't increase during the access,
> + // For FIFO type, the device address won't increase during the access,
> // so treat Count as 1
> //
> if (Width >= EfiPciWidthFifoUint8 && Width <= EfiPciWidthFifoUint64) {
> @@ -347,6 +348,13 @@ RootBridgeIoCheckParameter (
> Width = (EFI_PCI_ROOT_BRIDGE_IO_PROTOCOL_WIDTH) (Width & 0x03);
> Size = 1 << Width;
>
> + //
> + // Make sure (Count * Size) doesn't exceed MAX_UINT64
> + //
> + if (Count > DivU64x32 (MAX_UINT64, Size)) {
> + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> + }
> +
Mark as "Code Block 1".
> //
> // Check to see if Address is aligned
> //
> @@ -354,6 +362,14 @@ RootBridgeIoCheckParameter (
> return EFI_UNSUPPORTED;
> }
>
> + //
> + // Make sure (Address + Count * Size) doesn't exceed MAX_UINT64
> + //
> + Length = MultU64x32 (Count, Size);
> + if (Address > MAX_UINT64 - Length) {
> + return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> + }
> +
Is there some reason this code block is not put together with the "Code
Block 1"? Both are checking integer overflow.
How about also enhancing the function description a little to add one
line for describing the overflow invalid parameter cases?
@retval EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER XXX.
or just updating the line below?
@retval EFI_UNSUPPORTED The address range specified by
Address, Width,
and Count is not valid for this PI system.
Thanks,
Star
> RootBridge = ROOT_BRIDGE_FROM_THIS (This);
>
> //
> @@ -372,7 +388,7 @@ RootBridgeIoCheckParameter (
> //
> // Allow Legacy IO access
> //
> - if (Address + MultU64x32 (Count, Size) <= 0x1000) {
> + if (Address + Length <= 0x1000) {
> if ((RootBridge->Attributes & (
> EFI_PCI_ATTRIBUTE_ISA_IO | EFI_PCI_ATTRIBUTE_VGA_PALETTE_IO | EFI_PCI_ATTRIBUTE_VGA_IO |
> EFI_PCI_ATTRIBUTE_IDE_PRIMARY_IO | EFI_PCI_ATTRIBUTE_IDE_SECONDARY_IO |
> @@ -386,7 +402,7 @@ RootBridgeIoCheckParameter (
> //
> // Allow Legacy MMIO access
> //
> - if ((Address >= 0xA0000) && (Address + MultU64x32 (Count, Size)) <= 0xC0000) {
> + if ((Address >= 0xA0000) && (Address + Length) <= 0xC0000) {
> if ((RootBridge->Attributes & EFI_PCI_ATTRIBUTE_VGA_MEMORY) != 0) {
> return EFI_SUCCESS;
> }
> @@ -395,7 +411,7 @@ RootBridgeIoCheckParameter (
> // By comparing the Address against Limit we know which range to be used
> // for checking
> //
> - if (Address + MultU64x32 (Count, Size) <= RootBridge->Mem.Limit + 1) {
> + if (Address + Length <= RootBridge->Mem.Limit + 1) {
> Base = RootBridge->Mem.Base;
> Limit = RootBridge->Mem.Limit;
> } else {
> @@ -427,7 +443,7 @@ RootBridgeIoCheckParameter (
> return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> }
>
> - if (Address + MultU64x32 (Count, Size) > Limit + 1) {
> + if (Address + Length > Limit + 1) {
> return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> }
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-25 2:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-21 7:25 [PATCH 0/3] Fix a bug that prevents PMEM access Ruiyu Ni
2018-09-21 7:25 ` [PATCH 1/3] MdeModulePkg/PciHostBridge: Enhance boundary check in Io/Mem.Read/Write Ruiyu Ni
2018-09-21 10:53 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-09-24 13:18 ` Kirkendall, Garrett
2018-09-25 2:14 ` Zeng, Star [this message]
2018-09-25 2:43 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2018-09-25 3:02 ` Zeng, Star
2018-09-21 7:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] MdeModulePkg/PciHostBridge: Fix a bug that prevents PMEM access Ruiyu Ni
2018-09-21 11:06 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-09-25 2:11 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2018-09-24 13:19 ` Kirkendall, Garrett
2018-09-25 2:15 ` Zeng, Star
2018-09-21 7:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] MdeModulePkg/PciHostBridge: Add RESOURCE_VALID() to simplify code Ruiyu Ni
2018-09-21 11:12 ` Laszlo Ersek
2018-09-25 2:25 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2018-09-25 2:35 ` Zeng, Star
2018-09-25 2:47 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2018-09-25 3:13 ` Zeng, Star
2018-09-25 5:03 ` Ni, Ruiyu
2018-09-24 13:20 ` Kirkendall, Garrett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=73f95487-2316-401a-3129-aee0e52eed9f@intel.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox