can: mcp25xxfd: add driver for Microchip MCP25xxFD SPI CAN
Hello Marc Kleine-Budde,
The patch 55e5b97f003e: "can: mcp25xxfd: add driver for Microchip MCP25xxFD SPI CAN" from Sep 18, 2020, leads to the following static checker Smatch warning:
drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2271 mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb() warn: user controlled 'len' cast to postive rl = '(-249)-(-1),1-67' drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272 mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb() error: 'memcpy()' 'hw_tx_obj->data' too small (64 vs 255) drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272 mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb() error: 'memcpy()' 'cfd->data' too small (64 vs 255) drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272 mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb() error: 'cfd->len' from user is not capped properly
(Only one of these checks is published and it's disabled unless you run with the --spammy flag).
drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c
2208 static void
2209 mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb(const struct mcp25xxfd_priv *priv,
2210 struct mcp25xxfd_tx_obj *tx_obj,
2211 const struct sk_buff *skb,
2212 unsigned int seq)
2213 {
2214 const struct canfd_frame *cfd = (struct canfd_frame *)skb->data;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Smatch distrusts all skb->data information.
2215 struct mcp25xxfd_hw_tx_obj_raw *hw_tx_obj;
2216 union mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_load_buf *load_buf;
2217 u8 dlc;
2218 u32 id, flags;
2219 int offset, len;
2220
2221 if (cfd->can_id & CAN_EFF_FLAG) {
2222 u32 sid, eid;
2223
2224 sid = FIELD_GET(MCP25XXFD_REG_FRAME_EFF_SID_MASK, cfd->can_id);
2225 eid = FIELD_GET(MCP25XXFD_REG_FRAME_EFF_EID_MASK, cfd->can_id);
2226
2227 id = FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_ID_EID_MASK, eid) |
2228 FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_ID_SID_MASK, sid);
2229
2230 flags = MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_IDE;
2231 } else {
2232 id = FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_ID_SID_MASK, cfd->can_id);
2233 flags = 0;
2234 }
2235
2236 /* Use the MCP2518FD mask even on the MCP2517FD. It doesn't
2237 * harm, only the lower 7 bits will be transferred into the
2238 * TEF object.
2239 */
2240 dlc = can_len2dlc(cfd->len);
2241 flags |= FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_SEQ_MCP2518FD_MASK, seq) |
2242 FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_DLC, dlc);
2243
2244 if (cfd->can_id & CAN_RTR_FLAG)
2245 flags |= MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_RTR;
2246
2247 /* CANFD */
2248 if (can_is_canfd_skb(skb)) {
2249 if (cfd->flags & CANFD_ESI)
2250 flags |= MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_ESI;
2251
2252 flags |= MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_FDF;
2253
2254 if (cfd->flags & CANFD_BRS)
2255 flags |= MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_BRS;
2256 }
2257
2258 load_buf = &tx_obj->buf;
2259 if (priv->devtype_data.quirks & MCP25XXFD_QUIRK_CRC_TX)
2260 hw_tx_obj = &load_buf->crc.hw_tx_obj;
2261 else
2262 hw_tx_obj = &load_buf->nocrc.hw_tx_obj;
2263
2264 put_unaligned_le32(id, &hw_tx_obj->id);
2265 put_unaligned_le32(flags, &hw_tx_obj->flags);
2266
2267 /* Clear data at end of CAN frame */
2268 offset = round_down(cfd->len, sizeof(u32));
2269 len = round_up(can_dlc2len(dlc), sizeof(u32)) - offset;Smatch thinks that "cfd->len" can be more than 64 which leads to setting "len" negative.
2270 if (MCP25XXFD_SANITIZE_CAN && len)
2271 memset(hw_tx_obj->data + offset, 0x0, len);
^^^Which would corrupt memory.
2272 memcpy(hw_tx_obj->data, cfd->data, cfd->len);
^^^^^^^^Smatch thinks this can be more than 64.
2273
2274 /* Number of bytes to be written into the RAM of the controller */
2275 len = sizeof(hw_tx_obj->id) + sizeof(hw_tx_obj->flags);
regards,
dan carpenter
Marc Kleine-Budde
maintainerQuoted 6 lines · Dan Carpenter
Hello Marc Kleine-Budde,
The patch
55e5b97f003e: "can: mcp25xxfd: add driver for Microchip MCP25xxFD SPI CAN" from Sep 18, 2020, leads to the following static checker Smatch warning:
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2271mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb()warn: user controlled 'len' cast to postive rl = '(-249)-(-1),1-67'drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb()error: 'memcpy()' 'hw_tx_obj->data' too small (64 vs 255)drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb()error: 'memcpy()' 'cfd->data' too small (64 vs 255)drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb()error: 'cfd->len' from user is not capped properly(Only one of these checks is published and it's disabled unless you run with the --spammy flag).
From my point of view they look like false positive, let's see:
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c
2208 static void
2209 mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb(const structmcp25xxfd_priv*priv,2210 struct mcp25xxfd_tx_obj *tx_obj, 2211 const struct sk_buff *skb, 2212 unsigned int seq) 2213 { 2214 const struct canfd_frame *cfd = (struct canfd_frame *)skb->data; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Smatch distrusts all
skb->datainformation.
We do neither.
The function in question is only called from mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb():
Quoted 10 lines
static
netdev_tx_tmcp25xxfd_start_xmit(structsk_buff*skb,
structnet_device*ndev){ struct mcp25xxfd_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev); struct mcp25xxfd_tx_ring *tx_ring = priv->tx; struct mcp25xxfd_tx_obj *tx_obj; u8 tx_head; int err; if (can_dropped_invalid_skb(ndev, skb))
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quoted 7 lines
return NETDEV_TX_OK; if (mcp25xxfd_tx_busy(priv, tx_ring)) return NETDEV_TX_BUSY; tx_obj = mcp25xxfd_get_tx_obj_next(tx_ring); mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb(priv, tx_obj, skb, tx_ring->head);
[...]
Quoted 1 line
}
can_dropped_invalid_skb() checks if the skb is valid and consistent:
Quoted 8 lines
static inline bool can_dropped_invalid_skb(struct
net_device*dev,
structsk_buff*skb){ const struct canfd_frame *cfd = (struct canfd_frame *)skb->data; if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_CAN)) { if (unlikely(skb->len != CAN_MTU || cfd->len > CAN_MAX_DLEN))
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...here we check for cfd->len...
Quoted 4 lines
goto inval_skb;
} else if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_CANFD)) {
if (unlikely(skb->len != CANFD_MTU ||
cfd->len > CANFD_MAX_DLEN))^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...here we check for cfd->len...
Quoted 9 lines
goto inval_skb; } else goto inval_skb; if (!can_skb_headroom_valid(dev, skb)) goto inval_skb; return false;
Quoted 5 lines
inval_skb:kfree_skb(skb); dev->stats.tx_dropped++; return true; }
...and the limits are defined as:
Quoted 69 lines
#define
CAN_MAX_DLEN8
#defineCANFD_MAX_DLEN642215 struct mcp25xxfd_hw_tx_obj_raw *hw_tx_obj; 2216 union mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_load_buf *load_buf; 2217 u8 dlc; 2218 u32 id, flags; 2219 int offset, len; 2220 2221 if (cfd->can_id & CAN_EFF_FLAG) { 2222 u32 sid, eid; 2223 2224 sid = FIELD_GET(MCP25XXFD_REG_FRAME_EFF_SID_MASK, cfd->can_id); 2225 eid = FIELD_GET(MCP25XXFD_REG_FRAME_EFF_EID_MASK, cfd->can_id); 2226 2227 id = FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_ID_EID_MASK, eid) | 2228 FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_ID_SID_MASK, sid); 2229 2230 flags = MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_IDE; 2231 } else { 2232 id = FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_ID_SID_MASK, cfd->can_id); 2233 flags = 0; 2234 } 2235 2236 /* Use the MCP2518FD mask even on the MCP2517FD. It doesn't 2237 * harm, only the lower 7 bits will be transferred into the 2238 * TEF object. 2239 */ 2240 dlc = can_len2dlc(cfd->len); 2241 flags |= FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_SEQ_MCP2518FD_MASK, seq) | 2242 FIELD_PREP(MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_DLC, dlc); 2243 2244 if (cfd->can_id & CAN_RTR_FLAG) 2245 flags |= MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_RTR; 2246 2247 /* CANFD */ 2248 if (can_is_canfd_skb(skb)) { 2249 if (cfd->flags & CANFD_ESI) 2250 flags |= MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_ESI; 2251 2252 flags |= MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_FDF; 2253 2254 if (cfd->flags & CANFD_BRS) 2255 flags |= MCP25XXFD_OBJ_FLAGS_BRS; 2256 } 2257 2258 load_buf = &tx_obj->buf; 2259 if (priv->devtype_data.quirks & MCP25XXFD_QUIRK_CRC_TX) 2260 hw_tx_obj = &load_buf->crc.hw_tx_obj; 2261 else 2262 hw_tx_obj = &load_buf->nocrc.hw_tx_obj; 2263 2264 put_unaligned_le32(id, &hw_tx_obj->id); 2265 put_unaligned_le32(flags, &hw_tx_obj->flags); 2266 2267 /* Clear data at end of CAN frame */ 2268 offset = round_down(cfd->len, sizeof(u32)); 2269 len = round_up(can_dlc2len(dlc), sizeof(u32)) - offset;Smatch thinks that "
cfd->len" can be more than 64 which leads to setting "len" negative.2270 if (
MCP25XXFD_SANITIZE_CAN&& len)2271 memset(hw_tx_obj->data + offset, 0x0, len); ^^^Which would corrupt memory.
2272 memcpy(hw_tx_obj->data, cfd->data, cfd->len); ^^^^^^^^
Quoted 9 lines
Smatch thinks this can be more than 64.
2273
2274 /* Number of bytes to be written into the RAM of the controller */
2275 len =sizeof(hw_tx_obj->id)+sizeof(hw_tx_obj->flags);regards,
dan carpenter
regards,
Marc
Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Quoted 12 lines · Marc Kleine-Budde
Quoted 11 lines · Dan Carpenter
Hello Marc Kleine-Budde,
The patch
55e5b97f003e: "can: mcp25xxfd: add driver for Microchip MCP25xxFD SPI CAN" from Sep 18, 2020, leads to the following static checker Smatch warning:
drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2271mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb()warn: user controlled 'len' cast to postive rl = '(-249)-(-1),1-67'drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb()error: 'memcpy()' 'hw_tx_obj->data' too small (64 vs 255)drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb()error: 'memcpy()' 'cfd->data' too small (64 vs 255)drivers/net/can/spi/mcp25xxfd/mcp25xxfd-core.c:2272mcp25xxfd_tx_obj_from_skb()error: 'cfd->len' from user is not capped properly
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
(Only one of these checks is published and it's disabled unless you run with the --spammy flag).
From my point of view they look like false positive, let's see:
Yeah. You're right. Sorry about that.
regards,
dan carpenter