On 01/08/18 22:50, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
When all the fw_cfg slots are used, a write is made outside the
bounds of the fw_cfg files array as part of the sort algorithm.
Fix it by avoiding an unnecessary array element move.
Fix also an assert while at it.
Signed-off-by: Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden>
---
hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
index 753ac0e4ea..4313484b21 100644
--- a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
+++ b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c
@@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ void fw_cfg_add_file_callback(FWCfgState *s, const char
*filename,
* index and "i - 1" is the one being copied from, thus the
* unusual start and end in the for statement.
*/
- for (i = count + 1; i > index; i--) {
+ for (i = count; i > index; i--) {
s->files->f[i] = s->files->f[i - 1];
s->files->f[i].select = cpu_to_be16(FW_CFG_FILE_FIRST + i);
s->entries[0][FW_CFG_FILE_FIRST + i] =
This hunk looks correct to me.
array, so we cannot normally access the element *at* count. However, we
are extending the array right now, therefore we can assign (store) the
element at count (and then we'll increment count later). But accessing
an element at (count+1) is wrong.
@@ -833,7 +833,6 @@ void *fw_cfg_modify_file(FWCfgState *s, const char
*filename,
assert(s->files);
index = be32_to_cpu(s->files->count);
- assert(index < fw_cfg_file_slots(s));
for (i = 0; i < index; i++) {
if (strcmp(filename, s->files->f[i].name) == 0) {
@@ -843,6 +842,9 @@ void *fw_cfg_modify_file(FWCfgState *s, const char
*filename,
return ptr;
}
}
+
+ assert(index < fw_cfg_file_slots(s));
+
/* add new one */
fw_cfg_add_file_callback(s, filename, NULL, NULL, NULL, data, len, true);
return NULL;
I think I agree with Marc-André here, when I say, replace the assert
with a comment instead? (About the fact that fw_cfg_add_file_callback()
will assert(), *if* we reach that far.)