[PATCH v2 2/2] kexec: Fix potential out of bounds in crash_exclude_mem_range()
Baoquan He
bhe at redhat.com
Thu Dec 21 03:42:21 PST 2023
On 12/20/23 at 01:57pm, fuqiang wang wrote:
> When the split does not occur on the last array member, the current code
> will not return an error. So the correct array out-of-bounds check should
> be mem->nr_ranges >= mem->max_nr_ranges.
>
> When the OOB happen, the cmem->ranges[] have changed, so return early to
> avoid it.
>
> Signed-off-by: fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang at easystack.cn>
> ---
> kernel/crash_core.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
You may need rebase your work on next/master branch to avoid conflict.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
In the current, below commit exists, then code change in this patch may
not be needed.
86d80cbb61ca crash_core: fix and simplify the logic of crash_exclude_mem_range()
>
> diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c
> index d4313b53837e..b1ab61c74fd2 100644
> --- a/kernel/crash_core.c
> +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c
> @@ -611,6 +611,9 @@ int crash_exclude_mem_range(struct crash_mem *mem,
> }
>
> if (p_start > start && p_end < end) {
> + /* Split happened */
> + if (mem->nr_ranges >= mem->max_nr_ranges)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> /* Split original range */
> mem->ranges[i].end = p_start - 1;
> temp_range.start = p_end + 1;
> @@ -626,10 +629,6 @@ int crash_exclude_mem_range(struct crash_mem *mem,
> if (!temp_range.end)
> return 0;
>
> - /* Split happened */
> - if (i == mem->max_nr_ranges - 1)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> -
> /* Location where new range should go */
> j = i + 1;
> if (j < mem->nr_ranges) {
> --
> 2.42.0
>
More information about the kexec
mailing list