Re: less size_t please (was Re: [PATCH net] xfrm: fix integer overflow in xfrm_replay_state_esn_len())

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:06:55PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 07:15:15PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 04:44:42PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:

quoted

quoted

-static inline unsigned int xfrm_replay_state_esn_len(struct xfrm_replay_state_esn *replay_esn)
+static inline size_t xfrm_replay_state_esn_len(struct xfrm_replay_state_esn *replay_esn)
 {
-	return sizeof(*replay_esn) + replay_esn->bmp_len * sizeof(__u32);
+	return size_add(sizeof(*replay_esn), size_mul(replay_esn->bmp_len, sizeof(__u32)));

Please don't do this.

You can (and should!) make calculations and check for overflow at the
same time. It's very efficient.

quoted

1) Use size_add() and size_mul().  This change is necessary for 32bit systems.

This bloats code on 32-bit.

I'm not sure I understand.  On 32-bit systems a size_t and an unsigned
int are the same size.  Did you mean to say 64-bit?

It looks like yes.

quoted

Declaring sizes as u32 leads to integer overflows like this one.

No, the problem is unchecked C addition and mixing types which confuses
people (in the opposite direction too -- there were fake CVEs because
someone thought "size_t len" in write hooks could be big enough).

What was the CVE number?

regards,
dan carpenter