Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: Prevent overflow in proc_bus_pci_write()
From: duziming
Date: Wed Dec 17 2025 - 04:36:42 EST
在 2025/12/16 18:57, Ilpo Järvinen 写道:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025, Ziming Du wrote:
When the value of ppos over the INT_MAX, the pos will be
is over
set a negtive value which will be pass to get_user() or
set to a negative value which will be passed
pci_user_write_config_dword(). And unexpected behavior
Please start the sentence with something else than And.
Hmm, the lines look rather short too, can you please reflow the changelog
paragraphs to 75 characters.
Thanks for the review. I'll reflow the changelog to 75-character lines
and avoid
starting sentences with 'And' in the next revision.
such as a softlock happens:
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 130s! [syz.3.109:3444]
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 3444 Comm: syz.3.109 Not tainted 6.6.0+ #33
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x17/0x30
Code: cc cc cc 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 f3 0f 1e fa 0f 1f 44 00 00 e8 52 12 00 00 90 fb 65 ff 0d b1 a1 86 6d <74> 05 e9 42 52 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 c3 cc cc cc cc 0f 1f 84 00 00
RSP: 0018:ffff88816851fb50 EFLAGS: 00000246
RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffffffff927daf9b
RDX: 0000000000000cfc RSI: 0000000000000046 RDI: ffffffff9a7c7400
RBP: 00000000818bb9dc R08: 0000000000000001 R09: ffffed102d0a3f59
R10: 0000000000000003 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: ffff888102220000 R14: ffffffff926d3b10 R15: 00000000210bbb5f
FS: 00007ff2d4e56640(0000) GS:ffff8881f5c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00000000210bbb5b CR3: 0000000147374002 CR4: 0000000000772ef0
PKRU: 00000000
Call Trace:
<TASK>
pci_user_write_config_dword+0x126/0x1f0
? __get_user_nocheck_8+0x20/0x20
proc_bus_pci_write+0x273/0x470
proc_reg_write+0x1b6/0x280
do_iter_write+0x48e/0x790
? import_iovec+0x47/0x90
vfs_writev+0x125/0x4a0
? futex_wake+0xed/0x500
? __pfx_vfs_writev+0x10/0x10
? userfaultfd_ioctl+0x131/0x1ae0
? userfaultfd_ioctl+0x131/0x1ae0
? do_futex+0x17e/0x220
? __pfx_do_futex+0x10/0x10
? __fget_files+0x193/0x2b0
__x64_sys_pwritev+0x1e2/0x2a0
? __pfx___x64_sys_pwritev+0x10/0x10
do_syscall_64+0x59/0x110
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
Could you please trim the dump so it only contains things relevant to this
issue () (also check trimming in the other patches).
Thanks for pointing that out, we'll make sure to only keep the relevant
stacks in future patches.
Fix this by use unsigned int for the pos.
Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Liu <liuyongqiang13@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ziming Du <duziming2@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/proc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/proc.c b/drivers/pci/proc.c
index 9348a0fb8084..dbec1d4209c9 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/proc.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/proc.c
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static ssize_t proc_bus_pci_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
{
struct inode *ino = file_inode(file);
struct pci_dev *dev = pde_data(ino);
- int pos = *ppos;
+ unsigned int pos = *ppos;
int size = dev->cfg_size;
int cnt, ret;
So this still throws away some bits compared with the original ppos ?
The current approach may lose some precision compared to the original
ppos, but a later check ensures pos
remains valid—so any potential information loss is handled safely.