linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] tipc: check return value of nlmsg

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:16:05 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     PanBian <bianpan2016@....com>
Cc:     Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tipc: check return value of nlmsg_new

On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 16:00 +0800, PanBian wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:17:16AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 15:09 +0800, Pan Bian wrote:
> > > Function nlmsg_new() will return a NULL pointer if there is no enough
> > > memory, and its return value should be checked before it is used.
> > > However, in function tipc_nl_node_get_monitor(), the validation of the
> > > return value of function nlmsg_new() is missed. This patch fixes the
> > > bug.
> > 
> > Hello.
> > 
> > Thanks for the patches.
> > 
> > Are you finding these via a tool or inspection?
> > 
> > If a tool is being used, could you please describe it?
> > 
> 
> Yes. I developed a tool to find this kind of bugs.
> 
> The detecting idea is simple. In large systems like the Linux kernel, 
> most implementations are correct, and incorrect ones are rare. Based on
> this observation, we take programs that have different implementations
> with others as bugs. For example, in most cases, the return vlaue of
> nlmsg_new() is validated and it will not be passed to genlmsg_reply() if
> its value is NULL. However, in function tipc_nl_node_get_monitor(), the
> validation is missing. The abnormal behavior leads us to believe that
> there is a bug.

Perhaps adding __must_check to some of the appropriate function
declarations/prototypes would help avoid new future misuses.