On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 8:04 AM Basharath Hussain Khaja
[off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

quoted

quoted

Thomas Weißschuh [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The members "start" and "end" of struct resource are of type
"resource_size_t" which can be 32bit wide.
Values read from OF however are always 64bit wide.

Refactor the diff overflow checks into a helper function.
Also extend the checks to validate each calculation step.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <redacted>
---
 drivers/of/address.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
index 7e59283a4472..df854bb427ce 100644
--- a/drivers/of/address.c
+++ b/drivers/of/address.c

@@ -198,6 +198,25 @@ static u64 of_bus_pci_map(__be32 *addr, const __be32 *range, int na, int ns,

 #endif /* CONFIG_PCI */

+static int __of_address_resource_bounds(struct resource *r, u64 start, u64 size)
+{
+     u64 end = start;
+
+     if (overflows_type(start, r->start))
+             return -EOVERFLOW;
+     if (size == 0)
+             return -EOVERFLOW;
+     if (check_add_overflow(end, size - 1, &end))
+             return -EOVERFLOW;
+     if (overflows_type(end, r->end))
+             return -EOVERFLOW;

This breaks PCI on powerpc qemu. Part of the PCI probe reads a resource
that's zero sized, which used to succeed but now fails due to the size
check above.

The diff below fixes it for me.

I fixed it up with your change.

This commit is breaking Ethernet functionality on the TI AM57xx platform due to zero byte SRAM block size allocation during initialization. Prior to this patch, zero byte block sizes were handled properly.

What driver and where exactly?

Rob