Re: [PATCH v9 10/27] resource: harden resource_contains

On 1/18/25 02:03, Dan Williams wrote:

alejandro.lucero-palau@ wrote:

quoted

From: Alejandro Lucero <redacted>

While resource_contains checks for IORESOURCE_UNSET flag for the
resources given, if r1 was initialized with 0 size, the function
returns a false positive. This is so because resource start and
end fields are unsigned with end initialised to size - 1 by current
resource macros.

Make the function to check for the resource size for both resources
since r2 with size 0 should not be considered as valid for the function
purpose.

Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <redacted>
Suggested-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <redacted>
---
  include/linux/ioport.h | 2 ++
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/ioport.h b/include/linux/ioport.h
index 5385349f0b8a..7ba31a222536 100644
--- a/include/linux/ioport.h
+++ b/include/linux/ioport.h

@@ -296,6 +296,8 @@ static inline unsigned long resource_ext_type(const struct resource *res)
  /* True iff r1 completely contains r2 */
  static inline bool resource_contains(const struct resource *r1, const struct resource *r2)
  {
+	if (!resource_size(r1) || !resource_size(r2))
+		return false;

I just worry that some code paths expect the opposite, that it is ok to
pass zero size resources and get a true result.

That is an interesting point, I would say close to philosophic arguments. I guess you mean the zero size resource being the one that is contained inside the non-zero one, because the other option is making my vision blurry. In fact, even that one makes me feel trapped in a window-less room, in summer, with a bunch of economists, I mean philosophers, and my phone without signal for emergency calls.


But maybe it is just  my lack of understanding and there exists a good reason for this possibility.


Bjorn, I guess the ball is in your side ...

Did you audit existing callers?