[0/6] net/bnxt: bounds checking patches
mbox series

Message ID 20200303175938.14292-1-stephen@networkplumber.org
Headers show
Series
  • net/bnxt: bounds checking patches
Related show

Message

Stephen Hemminger March 3, 2020, 5:59 p.m. UTC
This set of patches came from security review of bnxt driver.
It introduces a set of overflow macros that could be more widely
used in other places in DPDK to check for math overflows.

Stephen Hemminger (6):
  eal: add portable way to check for math overflow
  net/bnxt: fix potential data race
  net/bnxt: avoid potential out of bounds read
  net/bnxt: check for integer overflow in buffer sizing
  net/bnxt: add integer underflow check
  net/bnxt: sanitize max_l2_ctx

 drivers/net/bnxt/bnxt_hwrm.c                 | 31 ++++++--
 lib/librte_eal/common/Makefile               |  2 +-
 lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_overflow.h | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_overflow.h

Comments

Ferruh Yigit March 31, 2020, 11:47 a.m. UTC | #1
On 3/3/2020 5:59 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> This set of patches came from security review of bnxt driver.
> It introduces a set of overflow macros that could be more widely
> used in other places in DPDK to check for math overflows.
> 
> Stephen Hemminger (6):
>   eal: add portable way to check for math overflow
>   net/bnxt: fix potential data race
>   net/bnxt: avoid potential out of bounds read
>   net/bnxt: check for integer overflow in buffer sizing
>   net/bnxt: add integer underflow check
>   net/bnxt: sanitize max_l2_ctx
> 

Hi Ajit,

I can see this patchset has been merged into your tree, although the note in the
mail list is missing. Since it has eal changes, I believe they should be
reviewed first before merging into brcm tree, can you separate the eal and
dependent patch for review, we can proceed with rest?

Regards,
ferruh
Ajit Khaparde March 31, 2020, 5:52 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:23 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:

> On 3/3/2020 5:59 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > This set of patches came from security review of bnxt driver.
> > It introduces a set of overflow macros that could be more widely
> > used in other places in DPDK to check for math overflows.
> >
> > Stephen Hemminger (6):
> >   eal: add portable way to check for math overflow
> >   net/bnxt: fix potential data race
> >   net/bnxt: avoid potential out of bounds read
> >   net/bnxt: check for integer overflow in buffer sizing
> >   net/bnxt: add integer underflow check
> >   net/bnxt: sanitize max_l2_ctx
> >
>
> Hi Ajit,
>
> I can see this patchset has been merged into your tree, although the note
> in the
> mail list is missing. Since it has eal changes, I believe they should be
> reviewed first before merging into brcm tree, can you separate the eal and
> dependent patch for review, we can proceed with rest?
>
I don't mind.
But being original owner - Stephen, do you want to go ahead?

Thanks
Ajit

>
> Regards,
> ferruh
>
Stephen Hemminger March 31, 2020, 6:04 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:52:47 -0700
Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:23 AM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 3/3/2020 5:59 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:  
> > > This set of patches came from security review of bnxt driver.
> > > It introduces a set of overflow macros that could be more widely
> > > used in other places in DPDK to check for math overflows.
> > >
> > > Stephen Hemminger (6):
> > >   eal: add portable way to check for math overflow
> > >   net/bnxt: fix potential data race
> > >   net/bnxt: avoid potential out of bounds read
> > >   net/bnxt: check for integer overflow in buffer sizing
> > >   net/bnxt: add integer underflow check
> > >   net/bnxt: sanitize max_l2_ctx
> > >  
> >
> > Hi Ajit,
> >
> > I can see this patchset has been merged into your tree, although the note
> > in the
> > mail list is missing. Since it has eal changes, I believe they should be
> > reviewed first before merging into brcm tree, can you separate the eal and
> > dependent patch for review, we can proceed with rest?
> >  
> I don't mind.
> But being original owner - Stephen, do you want to go ahead?
> 
> Thanks
> Ajit
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > ferruh
> >  

Sure, I expected normal review cycle on this.
Hoped that other drivers and eal core would also add overflow checks