Re: [PATCH v7 04/12] virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space

[Dan Carpenter]

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:39:20PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 5:56 PM Xie Yongji <xieyongji@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This ensures that we will not use an invalid block size
> > in config space (might come from an untrusted device).

I looked at if I should add this as an untrusted function so that Smatch
could find these sorts of bugs but this is reading data from the host so
there has to be some level of trust...

I should add some more untrusted data kvm functions to Smatch.  Right
now I only have kvm_register_read() and I've added kvm_read_guest_virt()
just now.

> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > index ebb4d3fe803f..c848aa36d49b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >         err = virtio_cread_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE,
> >                                    struct virtio_blk_config, blk_size,
> >                                    &blk_size);
> > -       if (!err)
> > +       if (!err && blk_size > 0 && blk_size <= max_size)
> 
> The check here is incorrect. I will use PAGE_SIZE as the maximum
> boundary in the new version.

What does this bug look like to the user?  A minimum block size of 1
seems pretty crazy.  Surely the minimum should be higher?

regards,
dan carpenter