[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] x86/xlat: fix UB pointer arithmetic in COMPAT_ARG_XLAT_VIRT_BASE
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 04:50:58PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 18.03.2025 16:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 18.03.2025 10:19, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_64/uaccess.h > >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/x86_64/uaccess.h > >>> @@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ > >>> * a secondary mapping installed, which needs to be used for such > >>> accesses in > >>> * the PV case, and will also be used for HVM to avoid extra > >>> conditionals. > >>> */ > >>> -#define COMPAT_ARG_XLAT_VIRT_BASE ((void *)ARG_XLAT_START(current) + \ > >>> - (PERDOMAIN_ALT_VIRT_START - \ > >>> - PERDOMAIN_VIRT_START)) > >>> +#define COMPAT_ARG_XLAT_VIRT_BASE ((void *)ARG_XLAT_START(current) - \ > >>> + (PERDOMAIN_VIRT_START - \ > >>> + PERDOMAIN_ALT_VIRT_START)) > >> > >> Aren't we then (still) dependent on ordering between PERDOMAIN_VIRT_START > >> and PERDOMAIN_ALT_VIRT_START? Would > >> > >> #define COMPAT_ARG_XLAT_VIRT_BASE ((void *)ARG_XLAT_START(current) - \ > >> PERDOMAIN_VIRT_START + \ > >> PERDOMAIN_ALT_VIRT_START) > >> > >> perhaps be less fragile? > > > > PERDOMAIN_{ALT_,}VIRT_START are unsigned long, so this might work. > > > > Note however that even with your suggestion we are still dependant on > > ARG_XLAT_START(v) > PERDOMAIN_ALT_VIRT_START, or else the '-' won't > > work. I think I prefer my proposed version, because it's clear that > > PERDOMAIN_VIRT_START, ARG_XLAT_START(current) > > > PERDOMAIN_ALT_VIRT_START. > > What makes that clear? Can't we move PERDOMAIN_ALT_VIRT_START pretty > much at will? We would need to adjust the calculations here again, if PERDOMAIN_ALT_VIRT_START > PERDOMAIN_VIRT_START the subtraction would lead to an underflow, and would also be UB pointer arithmetic? Thanks, Roger.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |