[PATCH 6/6] staging: vme_user: provide DMA functionality

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:56:33PM +0300, Dmitry Kalinkin wrote:
> +static int vme_user_sg_to_dma_list(const struct vme_dma_op *dma_op,
> +	struct sg_table *sgt, int sg_count, struct vme_dma_list *dma_list)
> +{
> +	ssize_t pos = 0;
> +	struct scatterlist *sg;
> +	int i, ret;
> +
> +	for_each_sg(sgt->sgl, sg, sg_count, i) {
> +		struct vme_dma_attr *pci_attr, *vme_attr, *dest, *src;
> +		dma_addr_t hw_address = sg_dma_address(sg);
> +		unsigned int hw_len = sg_dma_len(sg);
> +
> +		vme_attr = vme_dma_vme_attribute(dma_op->vme_addr + pos,
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

->vme_addr comes from the user and we don't seem to have done any
validation that it's correct.  This addition can overflow.  How is this
safe?  (This is not a rhetorical question, I am a newbie in this).

> +			dma_op->aspace, dma_op->cycle, dma_op->dwidth);
> +		if (!vme_attr)
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +		pci_attr = vme_dma_pci_attribute(hw_address);
> +		if (!pci_attr) {
> +			vme_dma_free_attribute(vme_attr);
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (dma_op->write) {
> +			dest = vme_attr;
> +			src = pci_attr;
> +		} else {
> +			dest = pci_attr;
> +			src = vme_attr;
> +		}
> +
> +		ret = vme_dma_list_add(dma_list, src, dest, hw_len);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * XXX VME API doesn't mention whether we should keep
> +		 * attributes around
> +		 */
> +		vme_dma_free_attribute(vme_attr);
> +		vme_dma_free_attribute(pci_attr);
> +
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +
> +		pos += hw_len;
> +	}
> +
> +	WARN_ON(pos != dma_op->count);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t vme_user_dma_ioctl(unsigned int minor,
> +	const struct vme_dma_op *dma_op)
> +{
> +	unsigned int offset = offset_in_page(dma_op->buf_vaddr);
> +	unsigned long nr_pages;
> +	enum dma_data_direction dir;
> +	struct vme_dma_list *dma_list;
> +	struct sg_table *sgt = NULL;
> +	struct page **pages = NULL;
> +	long got_pages;
> +	int ret, sg_count;
> +
> +	/* Overflow check for nr_pages */
> +	if (dma_op->count > U32_MAX - 2 * PAGE_SIZE)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	/* Prevent WARN from dma_map_sg */
> +	if (dma_op->count == 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	nr_pages = (offset + dma_op->count + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> +	dir = dma_op->write ? DMA_TO_DEVICE : DMA_FROM_DEVICE;
> +
> +	pages = kmalloc_array(nr_pages, sizeof(pages[0]), GFP_KERNEL);

This lets the user try allocate huge ammounts of RAM.  Is there no
reasonable max size we can use?

> +	if (!pages) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto free;
> +	}
> +
> +	sgt = kzalloc(sizeof(*sgt), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!sgt) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto free;
> +	}
> +
> +	dma_list = vme_new_dma_list(image[minor].resource);
> +	if (!dma_list) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto free;
> +	}
> +
> +	got_pages = get_user_pages_fast(dma_op->buf_vaddr, nr_pages,
> +		!dma_op->write, pages);

This file is all indented poorly, but these patches adds a bunch of new
ones so they make a bad situation worse.

	got_pages = get_user_pages_fast(dma_op->buf_vaddr, nr_pages,
					!dma_op->write, pages);

You sometimes might have to use spaces to make things align correctly.

	got_pages = some_fake_name(dma_op->buf_vaddr, nr_pages,
				   !dma_op->write, pages);

[tab][tab][tab][tab][space][space][space][space]!dma_op->write, pages);

regards,
dan carpenter