The controversial part of this patch is that I've changed it so we now
prevent integer overflows for VME_USER types and before we didn't.  I
view it as kernel-hardening.  I looked at a couple places that used
VME_USER types and they seemed pretty suspicious so I'm pretty sure
preventing overflows here is a good idea.

The most common problem which this function is for cases like VME_A16
where we don't put an upper bound on "size" so you could have "size" set
to U64_MAX and a valid vme_base would overflow the "vme_base + size"
into the valid range as well.

In the VME_A64 case, the integer overflow checking doesn't work because
"U64_MAX + 1" has an integer overflow and it's just a complicated way of
saying zero.  That VME_A64 case is sort of interesting as well because
there is a VME_A64_MAX define which is set to "U64_MAX + 1".  The
compiler will never let anyone use it since it can't be stored in a u64
variable...  With my patch it's now limited to just U64_MAX.

Anyway, I put one integer overflow check at the start of the function
and deleted all existing checks.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Dmitry Kalinkin <dmitry.kalinkin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>