Re: [PATCH v2] vt: keyboard: avoid integer overflow in k_ascii

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:09:35PM +0000, Kyungtae Kim wrote:
> @@ -884,8 +884,11 @@ static void k_ascii(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag)
>  
>  	if (npadch == -1)
>  		npadch = value;
> +	else if (!check_mul_overflow(npadch, base, &new_npadch) &&
> +	    !check_add_overflow(new_npadch, value, &new_npadch))
> +		npadch = new_npadch;
>  	else
> -		npadch = npadch * base + value;
> +		return;
>  }

So thinking about it some more, if we use unsigned types, then there is
no issue with overflow UB, and thus maybe we should do something like
this:

diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c b/drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c
index 15d33fa0c925..568b2171f335 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c
@@ -127,7 +127,11 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(func_buf_lock); /* guard 'func_buf'  and friends */
 static unsigned long key_down[BITS_TO_LONGS(KEY_CNT)];	/* keyboard key bitmap */
 static unsigned char shift_down[NR_SHIFT];		/* shift state counters.. */
 static bool dead_key_next;
-static int npadch = -1;					/* -1 or number assembled on pad */
+
+/* Handles a number being assembled on the number pad */
+static bool npadch_active;
+static unsigned int npadch_value;
+
 static unsigned int diacr;
 static char rep;					/* flag telling character repeat */
 
@@ -845,12 +849,12 @@ static void k_shift(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag)
 		shift_state &= ~(1 << value);
 
 	/* kludge */
-	if (up_flag && shift_state != old_state && npadch != -1) {
+	if (up_flag && shift_state != old_state && npadch_active) {
 		if (kbd->kbdmode == VC_UNICODE)
-			to_utf8(vc, npadch);
+			to_utf8(vc, npadch_value);
 		else
-			put_queue(vc, npadch & 0xff);
-		npadch = -1;
+			put_queue(vc, npadch_value & 0xff);
+		npadch_active = false;
 	}
 }
 
@@ -868,7 +872,7 @@ static void k_meta(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag)
 
 static void k_ascii(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag)
 {
-	int base;
+	unsigned int base;
 
 	if (up_flag)
 		return;
@@ -882,10 +886,12 @@ static void k_ascii(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag)
 		base = 16;
 	}
 
-	if (npadch == -1)
-		npadch = value;
-	else
-		npadch = npadch * base + value;
+	if (!npadch_active) {
+		npadch_value = 0;
+		npadch_active = true;
+	}
+
+	npadch_value = npadch_value * base + value;
 }
 
 static void k_lock(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned char value, char up_flag)


I think if we stop overloading what npadch means, the code becomes more
clear. What do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry