netdev - RE: [PATCH rdma-next v2 01/13] IB/uverbs: Add an ib_uobject getter to ioctl() infrastructure

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:   Tue, 29 May 2018 20:49:58 +0000
From:   "Ruhl, Michael J" <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
CC:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>,
        "Matan Barak" <matanb@...lanox.com>,
        Raed Salem <raeds@...lanox.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH rdma-next v2 01/13] IB/uverbs: Add an ib_uobject getter
 to ioctl() infrastructure

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgg@...lanox.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 4:21 PM
>To: Ruhl, Michael J <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>
>Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>; Doug Ledford
><dledford@...hat.com>; Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>; RDMA
>mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>; Boris Pismenny
><borisp@...lanox.com>; Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>; Raed
>Salem <raeds@...lanox.com>; Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>; Saeed
>Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>; linux-netdev
><netdev@...r.kernel.org>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v2 01/13] IB/uverbs: Add an ib_uobject getter
>to ioctl() infrastructure
>
>On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 07:31:22PM +0000, Ruhl, Michael J wrote:
>> >-	struct ib_uverbs_destroy_cq_resp resp;
>> > 	struct ib_uobject *uobj =
>> >-		uverbs_attr_get(attrs,
>> >UVERBS_ATTR_DESTROY_CQ_HANDLE)->obj_attr.uobject;
>> >-	struct ib_ucq_object *obj = container_of(uobj, struct ib_ucq_object,
>> >-						 uobject);
>> >+		uverbs_attr_get_uobject(attrs,
>> >UVERBS_ATTR_DESTROY_CQ_HANDLE);
>> >+	struct ib_uverbs_destroy_cq_resp resp;
>> >+	struct ib_ucq_object *obj;
>> > 	int ret;
>> >
>> >+	if (IS_ERR(uobj))
>> >+		return PTR_ERR(uobj);
>> >+
>>
>> I remember a conversation that if an method attribute was mandatory, that
>you did not need to
>> test the uobj for error (since it was checked in the infrastructure).
>
>Yes.
>
>> Is this error check necessary?
>
>No
>
>But there is no way to check one way or the other at compile time
>right now, and omitting the check makes smatch mad.

Is smatch going to get mad at (same patch):

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_std_types_flow_action.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_std_types_flow_action.c
index b4f016dfa23d..a7be51cf2e42 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_std_types_flow_action.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_std_types_flow_action.c
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int UVERBS_HANDLER(UVERBS_METHOD_FLOW_ACTION_ESP_CREATE)(struct ib_device
 		return ret;

 	/* No need to check as this attribute is marked as MANDATORY */
-	uobj = uverbs_attr_get(attrs, UVERBS_ATTR_FLOW_ACTION_ESP_HANDLE)->obj_attr.uobject;
+	uobj = uverbs_attr_get_uobject(attrs, UVERBS_ATTR_FLOW_ACTION_ESP_HANDLE);
 	action = ib_dev->create_flow_action_esp(ib_dev, &esp_attr.hdr, attrs);
 	if (IS_ERR(action))
 		return PTR_ERR(action);
@@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static int UVERBS_HANDLER(UVERBS_METHOD_FLOW_ACTION_ESP_MODIFY)(struct ib_device
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;

-	uobj = uverbs_attr_get(attrs, UVERBS_ATTR_FLOW_ACTION_ESP_HANDLE)->obj_attr.uobject;
+	uobj = uverbs_attr_get_uobject(attrs, UVERBS_ATTR_FLOW_ACTION_ESP_HANDLE);
 	action = uobj->object;

?

If not,

Reviewed-by: Michael J. Ruhl <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>

Thanks,

Mike

>We need some more patches to be able to safely omit the check...
>
>Jason