[U-Boot] [PATCH 03/12] libfdt: Safer access to strings section
Tom Rini
trini at konsulko.com
Tue Apr 10 22:36:06 UTC 2018
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:42:45AM -0400, Simon Glass wrote:
> +U-Boot, Tom, Masahiro
>
> Hi David,
>
> On 10 April 2018 at 01:22, David Gibson <david at gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 01:21:10AM +0800, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> On 3 April 2018 at 23:02, David Gibson <david at gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 04:42:21PM +0800, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> > > Hi David,
> >> > >
> >> > > On 26 March 2018 at 07:25, David Gibson <david at gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >> > > > fdt_string() is used to retrieve strings from a DT blob's strings section.
> >> > > > It's rarely used directly, but is widely used internally.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > However, it doesn't do any bounds checking, which means in the case of a
> >> > > > corrupted blob it could access bad memory, which libfdt is supposed to
> >> > > > avoid.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This write a safe alternative to fdt_string, fdt_get_string(). It checks
> >> > > > both that the given offset is within the string section and that the string
> >> > > > it points to is properly \0 terminated within the section. It also returns
> >> > > > the string's length as a convenience (since it needs to determine to do the
> >> > > > checks anyway).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > fdt_string() is rewritten in terms of fdt_get_string() for compatibility.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Most of the diff here is actually testing infrastructure.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david at gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> >> > > > ---
> >> > > > libfdt/fdt_ro.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> > > > libfdt/libfdt.h | 18 ++++++++++-
> >> > > > libfdt/version.lds | 2 +-
> >> > > > tests/.gitignore | 1 +
> >> > > > tests/Makefile.tests | 2 +-
> >> > > > tests/run_tests.sh | 1 +
> >> > > > tests/testdata.h | 1 +
> >> > > > tests/testutils.c | 11 +++++--
> >> > > > tests/trees.S | 26 ++++++++++++++++
> >> > > > tests/truncated_string.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > > > 10 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >> > > > create mode 100644 tests/truncated_string.c
> >> > >
> >> > > Similar code-size quesiton here. It looks like a lot of checking code.
> >> > > Can we have an option to remove it?
> >> >
> >> > Again, I'm disinclined without a concrete example of a problem. Fwiw
> >> > the code size change is +276 bytes on my setup.
> >>
> >> That might not sound like a lot, but the overhead of DT in U-Boot is
> >> about 3KB, so this adds nearly 10%.
> >
> > Hm. And how much is it compared to the whole U-Boot blob?
> >
> >> The specific problem is that when U-Boot SPL gets too big boards don't
> >> boot. Because we take the upstream libfdt this will affect U-Boot.
> >>
> >> Do you have any thoughts on how we could avoid this size increase?
> >
> > So, again, I'm very disinclined to prioritize size over memory safety
> > without a *concrete* example. i.e. "We hit this specific problem with
> > size on this specific board that we were really using" rather than
> > just "it might be a problem".
I'm either failing in my Google-fu or is there not an easy way to grab
the patches from patchwork/similar? But, if you shoot me the series
off-list, I can tell you how much U-Boot targets grow here (we can use
the same script as the kernel to re-sync sources back in, so I can give
you a before/after). But as Simon notes, we have a number of platforms
that need to use (parts of) libfdt and stick to ~30KiB or less in total,
sometimes including some memory for stack/etc and we've long been using
-ffunction-sections/etc (the latest round of trying to use LTO has me
thinking maybe we can see if that's a valid option finally, but that's
an aside). Thanks!
--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20180410/863000eb/attachment.sig>
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list