Message ID | 20200619082218.656-1-andr2000@gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | common/board_f: Respect original FDT size while relocating | expand |
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:22:18AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> > > While relocating FDT we reserve some memory for the new FDT and > set the size of the FDT with that respect. But FDT may be placed > at the end of the RAM leading to memory access beyond it. > Fix this by copying exact FDT size bytes, not the reserved size. > > Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> > --- > common/board_f.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/common/board_f.c b/common/board_f.c > index 01194eaa0e4d..aa1285e94999 100644 > --- a/common/board_f.c > +++ b/common/board_f.c > @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static int reloc_fdt(void) > if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC) > return 0; > if (gd->new_fdt) { > - memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, gd->fdt_size); > + memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, fdt_totalsize(gd->fdt_blob)); > gd->fdt_blob = gd->new_fdt; > } > #endif So, I think the problem is placing the fdt so close to the end of memory and we need to fix that. With the above change, we won't copy past the end of memory but gd->fdt_blob + gd->fdt_size will still point past it, yes? Thanks!
On 6/19/20 4:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:22:18AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > >> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> >> >> While relocating FDT we reserve some memory for the new FDT and >> set the size of the FDT with that respect. But FDT may be placed >> at the end of the RAM leading to memory access beyond it. >> Fix this by copying exact FDT size bytes, not the reserved size. >> >> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> >> --- >> common/board_f.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/common/board_f.c b/common/board_f.c >> index 01194eaa0e4d..aa1285e94999 100644 >> --- a/common/board_f.c >> +++ b/common/board_f.c >> @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static int reloc_fdt(void) >> if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC) >> return 0; >> if (gd->new_fdt) { >> - memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, gd->fdt_size); >> + memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, fdt_totalsize(gd->fdt_blob)); >> gd->fdt_blob = gd->new_fdt; >> } >> #endif > So, I think the problem is placing the fdt so close to the end of memory > and we need to fix that. Exactly > With the above change, we won't copy past the > end of memory yes > but gd->fdt_blob + gd->fdt_size will still point past it, > yes? Not really as the next op after the memcpy will set fdt_blob to the new location and it is safe to access the memory in [gd->fdt_blob; gd->fdt_blob + gd->fdt_size) range. We only ensure we are copying the fdt itself, not also the reserved memory which doesn't exist past the original fdt addresses > Thanks! >
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:19:21PM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > On 6/19/20 4:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:22:18AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > > > >> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> > >> > >> While relocating FDT we reserve some memory for the new FDT and > >> set the size of the FDT with that respect. But FDT may be placed > >> at the end of the RAM leading to memory access beyond it. > >> Fix this by copying exact FDT size bytes, not the reserved size. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> > >> --- > >> common/board_f.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/common/board_f.c b/common/board_f.c > >> index 01194eaa0e4d..aa1285e94999 100644 > >> --- a/common/board_f.c > >> +++ b/common/board_f.c > >> @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static int reloc_fdt(void) > >> if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC) > >> return 0; > >> if (gd->new_fdt) { > >> - memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, gd->fdt_size); > >> + memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, fdt_totalsize(gd->fdt_blob)); > >> gd->fdt_blob = gd->new_fdt; > >> } > >> #endif > > So, I think the problem is placing the fdt so close to the end of memory > > and we need to fix that. > Exactly > > With the above change, we won't copy past the > > end of memory > yes > > but gd->fdt_blob + gd->fdt_size will still point past it, > > yes? > > Not really as the next op after the memcpy will set fdt_blob to the new location > > and it is safe to access the memory in [gd->fdt_blob; gd->fdt_blob + gd->fdt_size) range. > > We only ensure we are copying the fdt itself, not also the reserved memory which > > doesn't exist past the original fdt addresses Ah, so I had something backwards then. We're fine because gd->new_fdt + gd->fdt_size is fine. Thanks!
On 6/19/20 8:51 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:19:21PM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >> On 6/19/20 4:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:22:18AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>> >>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> >>>> >>>> While relocating FDT we reserve some memory for the new FDT and >>>> set the size of the FDT with that respect. But FDT may be placed >>>> at the end of the RAM leading to memory access beyond it. >>>> Fix this by copying exact FDT size bytes, not the reserved size. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> >>>> --- >>>> common/board_f.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/common/board_f.c b/common/board_f.c >>>> index 01194eaa0e4d..aa1285e94999 100644 >>>> --- a/common/board_f.c >>>> +++ b/common/board_f.c >>>> @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static int reloc_fdt(void) >>>> if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC) >>>> return 0; >>>> if (gd->new_fdt) { >>>> - memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, gd->fdt_size); >>>> + memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, fdt_totalsize(gd->fdt_blob)); >>>> gd->fdt_blob = gd->new_fdt; >>>> } >>>> #endif >>> So, I think the problem is placing the fdt so close to the end of memory >>> and we need to fix that. >> Exactly >>> With the above change, we won't copy past the >>> end of memory >> yes >>> but gd->fdt_blob + gd->fdt_size will still point past it, >>> yes? >> Not really as the next op after the memcpy will set fdt_blob to the new location >> >> and it is safe to access the memory in [gd->fdt_blob; gd->fdt_blob + gd->fdt_size) range. >> >> We only ensure we are copying the fdt itself, not also the reserved memory which >> >> doesn't exist past the original fdt addresses > Ah, so I had something backwards then. We're fine because gd->new_fdt + > gd->fdt_size is fine. Thanks! > Yes, that's right
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 02:22, Oleksandr Andrushchenko <andr2000 at gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> > > While relocating FDT we reserve some memory for the new FDT and > set the size of the FDT with that respect. But FDT may be placed > at the end of the RAM leading to memory access beyond it. > Fix this by copying exact FDT size bytes, not the reserved size. > > Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko at epam.com> > --- > common/board_f.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
diff --git a/common/board_f.c b/common/board_f.c index 01194eaa0e4d..aa1285e94999 100644 --- a/common/board_f.c +++ b/common/board_f.c @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ static int reloc_fdt(void) if (gd->flags & GD_FLG_SKIP_RELOC) return 0; if (gd->new_fdt) { - memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, gd->fdt_size); + memcpy(gd->new_fdt, gd->fdt_blob, fdt_totalsize(gd->fdt_blob)); gd->fdt_blob = gd->new_fdt; } #endif