netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 bpf] xdp: add NULL pointer check in __xdp

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:02:25 +0900
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, ast@...nel.org,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 bpf] xdp: add NULL pointer check in __xdp_return()

2018-07-26 11:11 GMT+09:00 Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 00:09:50 +0900, Taehee Yoo wrote:
>> rhashtable_lookup() can return NULL. so that NULL pointer
>> check routine should be added.
>>
>> Fixes: 02b55e5657c3 ("xdp: add MEM_TYPE_ZERO_COPY")
>> Signed-off-by: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
>> ---
>> V2 : add WARN_ON_ONCE when xa is NULL.
>>
>>  net/core/xdp.c | 5 ++++-
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/xdp.c b/net/core/xdp.c
>> index 9d1f220..786fdbe 100644
>> --- a/net/core/xdp.c
>> +++ b/net/core/xdp.c
>> @@ -345,7 +345,10 @@ static void __xdp_return(void *data, struct xdp_mem_info *mem, bool napi_direct,
>>               rcu_read_lock();
>>               /* mem->id is valid, checked in xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() */
>>               xa = rhashtable_lookup(mem_id_ht, &mem->id, mem_id_rht_params);
>> -             xa->zc_alloc->free(xa->zc_alloc, handle);
>> +             if (!xa)
>> +                     WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>
> nit: is compiler smart enough to figure out the fast path here?
> WARN_ON_ONCE() has the nice side effect of wrapping the condition in
> unlikely().  It could save us both LoC and potentially cycles to do:
>
> if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa))
>         xa->zc_alloc->free(xa->zc_alloc, handle);
>
> Although it admittedly looks a bit awkward.  I'm not sure if we have
> some form of assert (i.e. positive check) in tree :S
>

Thank you for suggestion!
I like this code style and I think there is no problem because readers
are familiar with this code style.

I will send v3 patch!
Thanks!

>> +             else
>> +                     xa->zc_alloc->free(xa->zc_alloc, handle);
>>               rcu_read_unlock();
>>       default:
>>               /* Not possible, checked in xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() */