USB: ehci_brcm_hub_control: improve port index sanitizing
Subsystems (3)
PATCH v3 1/1 USB: ehci_brcm_hub_control: improve port index sanitizing
Due to (wIndex & 0xff) - 1 can get an integer greater than 0xf, this can cause array index to be out of bounds since the size of array port_status is 0xf. Using macro function HCS_N_PORTS() can return a valid index less than 15. Macro function HCS_N_PORTS() is used to obtain a valid port index by logical AND 0xf.
--- drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c +4 -1
@@ -62,8 +62,11 @@ static int ehci_brcm_hub_control(u32 __iomem *status_reg;unsigned long flags;int retval, irq_disabled =0 ; +u32 temp; - status_reg = &ehci->regs->port_status[(wIndex &0xff ) -1 ]; + temp = (wIndex &0xff ) -1 ; + temp =HCS_N_PORTS (temp); + status_reg = &ehci->regs->port_status[temp];/* * RESUME is cleared when GetPortStatus() is called 20ms after start
Signature · 1 line
2.30.1 (Apple Git-130)
Greg KH
maintainerQuoted 32 lines · Haimin Zhang
Due to (wIndex &
0xff) - 1 can get an integer greater than0xf, this can cause array index to be out of bounds since the size of arrayport_statusis0xf. Using macro functionHCS_N_PORTS()can return a valid index less than 15. Macro functionHCS_N_PORTS()is used to obtain a valid port index by logical AND0xf.Reported-by TCS Robot <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Haimin Zhang <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c +4
-1@@ -62,8 +62,11 @@ static int ehci_brcm_hub_control(u32 __iomem *status_reg;unsigned long flags;int retval, irq_disabled =0 ; +u32 temp; - status_reg = &ehci->regs->port_status[(wIndex &0xff ) -1 ]; + temp = (wIndex &0xff ) -1 ; + temp =HCS_N_PORTS (temp); + status_reg = &ehci->regs->port_status[temp];/* * RESUME is cleared when GetPortStatus() is called 20ms after start Signature · 1 line
2.30.1 (Apple Git-130)
Hi,
This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree.
You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below:
- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what needs to be done here to properly describe this.
If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
Alan Stern
maintainerQuoted 17 lines · Haimin Zhang
Due to (wIndex &
0xff) - 1 can get an integer greater than0xf, this can cause array index to be out of bounds since the size of arrayport_statusis0xf. Using macro functionHCS_N_PORTS()can return a valid index less than 15. Macro functionHCS_N_PORTS()is used to obtain a valid port index by logical AND0xf.Reported-by TCS Robot <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Haimin Zhang <[email protected]>--- drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c +0
-0
drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c static int ehci_brcm_hub_control( · line 68
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c +3
-1@@ -62,8 +62,11 @@ static int ehci_brcm_hub_control(u32 __iomem *status_reg;unsigned long flags;int retval, irq_disabled =0 ; +u32 temp; - status_reg = &ehci->regs->port_status[(wIndex &0xff ) -1 ]; + temp = (wIndex &0xff ) -1 ; + temp =HCS_N_PORTS (temp);
This is a misuse of the HCS_N_PORTS macro; the fact that it works out okay is just a coincidence. That macro was intended for extracting the number of ports from the hcs_params word in the EHCI register space. It should not be used for any other purpose (including forcing a value to be in the range of valid port numbers).
If you want to do this correctly, do something like:
temp = min_t(u32, temp, HCS_N_PORTS_MAX - 1);
Or even:
if (temp >= HCS_N_PORTS_MAX) /* Force valid port number */ temp = 0;
Alan Stern
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c +1
-0+ status_reg = &ehci->regs->port_status[temp];/* * RESUME is cleared when GetPortStatus() is called 20ms after start Signature · 1 line
2.30.1 (Apple Git-130)