From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE8FA00C5; Thu, 7 May 2020 10:03:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102AC1DABD; Thu, 7 May 2020 10:03:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from git-send-mailer.rdmz.labs.mlnx (unknown [37.142.13.130]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821F61DAB7; Thu, 7 May 2020 10:03:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Bing Zhao To: anatoly.burakov@intel.com, thomas@monjalon.net Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 16:02:54 +0800 Message-Id: <1588838574-361500-1-git-send-email-bingz@mellanox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 In-Reply-To: <1588837269-360196-1-git-send-email-bingz@mellanox.com> References: <1588837269-360196-1-git-send-email-bingz@mellanox.com> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] mem: fix the alloc size roundup overflow X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" The size checking is done in the caller. The size parameter is an unsigned (64b wide) right now, so the comparison with zero should be enough in most cases. But it won't help in the following case. If the allocating request input a huge number by mistake, e.g., some overflow after the calculation (especially subtraction), the checking in the caller will succeed since it is not zero. Indeed, there is not enough space in the system to support such huge memory allocation. Usually it will return failure in the following code. But if the input size is just a little smaller than the UINT64_MAX, like -2 in signed type. The roundup will cause an overflow and then "reset" the size to 0, and then only a header (128B now) with zero length will be returned. The following will be the previous allocation header. It should be OK in most cases if the application won't access the memory body. Or else, some critical issue will be caused and not easy to debug. So this issue should be prevented at the beginning, like other big size failure, NULL pointer should be returned also. Fixes: fdf20fa7bee9 ("add prefix to cache line macros") Cc: sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao --- v2: add unit test for this case v3: fix the code style by using tab --- app/test/test_malloc.c | 12 ++++++++++++ lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/app/test/test_malloc.c b/app/test/test_malloc.c index 40a2f50..71b3cfd 100644 --- a/app/test/test_malloc.c +++ b/app/test/test_malloc.c @@ -846,6 +846,18 @@ if (bad_ptr != NULL) goto err_return; + /* rte_malloc expected to return null with size will cause overflow */ + align = RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE; + size = (size_t)-8; + + bad_ptr = rte_malloc(type, size, align); + if (bad_ptr != NULL) + goto err_return; + + bad_ptr = rte_realloc(NULL, size, align); + if (bad_ptr != NULL) + goto err_return; + return 0; err_return: diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c index 842eb9d..bd50656 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c @@ -241,6 +241,9 @@ size = RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(size); align = RTE_CACHE_LINE_ROUNDUP(align); + /* roundup might cause an overflow */ + if (size == 0) + return NULL; elem = find_suitable_element(heap, size, flags, align, bound, contig); if (elem != NULL) { elem = malloc_elem_alloc(elem, size, align, bound, contig); -- 1.8.3.1