Re: [PATCH] KVM: sev: Fix int overflow in send|recieve_update_data ioctls

[Tom Lendacky]

On 1/10/23 10:44, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> > > index 273cba809328..9451de72f917 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> > > @@ -1294,7 +1294,7 @@ static int sev_send_update_data(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_sev_cmd *argp)
> > >
> > >        /* Check if we are crossing the page boundary */
> > >        offset = params.guest_uaddr & (PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> > > -     if ((params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE))
> > > +     if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || (params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE))
> >
> > I see the original if statement had double parentheses, which looks
> > strange. Should this if (and the one below) be:
> >
> >          if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || (params.guest_len + offset) > PAGE_SIZE)
>
> Isn't the order of operations here: '+' and then '>'. So is the patch
> correct and matches the old conditional? I am fine adding additional

But what was the purpose of them in the old conditional? They weren't
necessary.

But, yes, that order of operations is correct and those are both before
'||'. So the extra parentheses around the second condition check are still
strange then, right?

Given that, then:

	if (params.guest_len > PAGE_SIZE || params.guest_len + offset > PAGE_SIZE)

> () for clarity though.

I do like the look and clarity of the parentheses around the addition.

Thanks,
Tom