@@ -965,6 +965,7 @@ static int rio_mport_transfer_ioctl(stru
struct rio_transfer_io *transfer;
enum dma_data_direction dir;
int i, ret = 0;
+ size_t size;
if (unlikely(copy_from_user(&transaction, arg, sizeof(transaction))))
return -EFAULT;
@@ -976,13 +977,14 @@ static int rio_mport_transfer_ioctl(stru
priv->md->properties.transfer_mode) == 0)
return -ENODEV;
- transfer = vmalloc(array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count));
+ size = array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count);
+ transfer = vmalloc(size);
if (!transfer)
return -ENOMEM;
if (unlikely(copy_from_user(transfer,
(void __user *)(uintptr_t)transaction.block,
- array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count)))) {
+ size))) {
ret = -EFAULT;
goto out_free;
}
@@ -994,8 +996,7 @@ static int rio_mport_transfer_ioctl(stru
transaction.sync, dir, &transfer[i]);
if (unlikely(copy_to_user((void __user *)(uintptr_t)transaction.block,
- transfer,
- array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count))))
+ transfer, size)))
ret = -EFAULT;
out_free:
The patch titled Subject: rapidio: avoid bogus __alloc_size warning has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is rapidio-avoid-bogus-__alloc_size-warning.patch This patch should soon appear at https://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/rapidio-avoid-bogus-__alloc_size-warning.patch and later at https://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/rapidio-avoid-bogus-__alloc_size-warning.patch Before you just go and hit "reply", please: a) Consider who else should be cc'ed b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's *** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code *** The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated there every 3-4 working days ------------------------------------------------------ From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Subject: rapidio: avoid bogus __alloc_size warning GCC 9.3 (but not later) incorrectly evaluates the arguments to check_copy_size(), getting seemingly confused by the size being returned from array_size(). Instead, perform the calculation once, which both makes the code more readable and avoids the bug in GCC. In file included from arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:7, from include/linux/preempt.h:78, from include/linux/spinlock.h:55, from include/linux/mm_types.h:9, from include/linux/buildid.h:5, from include/linux/module.h:14, from drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c:13: In function 'check_copy_size', inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:191:6, inlined from 'rio_mport_transfer_ioctl' at drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c:983:6: include/linux/thread_info.h:213:4: error: call to '__bad_copy_to' declared with attribute error: copy destination size is too small 213 | __bad_copy_to(); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But the allocation size and the copy size are identical: transfer = vmalloc(array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count)); if (!transfer) return -ENOMEM; if (unlikely(copy_from_user(transfer, (void __user *)(uintptr_t)transaction.block, array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count)))) { Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210909161409.2250920-1-keescook@chromium.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/202109091134.FHnRmRxu-lkp@intel.com/ Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Cc: Matt Porter <mporter@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Alexandre Bounine <alex.bou9@gmail.com> Cc: Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@huawei.com> Cc: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> Cc: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> --- drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)