[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707280113.33766.jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:13:33 +0200
From: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Luben Tuikov <luben_tuikov@...ptec.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][sas] Fix potential NULL pointer dereference bug in sas_smp_get_phy_events()
On 28/07/07, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 23:27 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > In sas_smp_get_phy_events() we never test if the call to
> > alloc_smp_req(RPEL_REQ_SIZE) succeeds or fails. That means we run
> > the risk of dereferencing a NULL pointer if it does fail. Far
> > better to test if we got NULL back and in that case return -ENOMEM
> > just as we already do for the other memory allocation in that
> > function.
> > This patch reworks the memory allocation a bit to deal with it
> > (compile tested only).
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
> > index b500f0c..85f5145 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
> > @@ -507,14 +507,21 @@ static int sas_dev_present_in_domain(struct asd_sas_port *port,
> > int sas_smp_get_phy_events(struct sas_phy *phy)
> > {
> > int res;
> > + u8 *req;
> > + u8 *resp;
> > struct sas_rphy *rphy = dev_to_rphy(phy->dev.parent);
> > struct domain_device *dev = sas_find_dev_by_rphy(rphy);
> > - u8 *req = alloc_smp_req(RPEL_REQ_SIZE);
> > - u8 *resp = kzalloc(RPEL_RESP_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > + resp = kzalloc(RPEL_RESP_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Actually, this should be alloc_smp_resp(RPEL_RESP_SIZE);
>
> > if (!resp)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > + req = alloc_smp_req(RPEL_REQ_SIZE);
> > + if (!req) {
> > + res = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> Just for the sake of being the same as all the rest of the code, the
> sequence should be
>
> req = alloc_smp_req(xxx_REQ_SIZE);
> if (!req)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> resp = alloc_smp_resp(xxx_RESP_SIZE);
> if (!resp) {
> kfree(req);
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> (allocate request then response).
>
Fair enough. It makes the code a bit larger though :
My way, as per the original patch:
text data bss dec hex filename
13820 0 8 13828 3604 drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.o
Your way, as per this patch:
text data bss dec hex filename
13832 0 8 13840 3610 drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.o
I hope this patch is acceptable :
In sas_smp_get_phy_events() we never test if the call to
alloc_smp_req(RPEL_REQ_SIZE) succeeds or fails. That means we run
the risk of dereferencing a NULL pointer if it does fail. Far
better to test if we got NULL back and in that case return -ENOMEM
just as we already do for the other memory allocation in that
function.
This patch should take care of it (compile tested only).
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
---
drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c | 13 ++++++++++---
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
index b500f0c..e98d2b9 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
@@ -507,14 +507,21 @@ static int sas_dev_present_in_domain(struct asd_sas_port *port,
int sas_smp_get_phy_events(struct sas_phy *phy)
{
int res;
+ u8 *req;
+ u8 *resp;
struct sas_rphy *rphy = dev_to_rphy(phy->dev.parent);
struct domain_device *dev = sas_find_dev_by_rphy(rphy);
- u8 *req = alloc_smp_req(RPEL_REQ_SIZE);
- u8 *resp = kzalloc(RPEL_RESP_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!resp)
+ req = alloc_smp_req(RPEL_REQ_SIZE);
+ if (!req)
return -ENOMEM;
+ resp = alloc_smp_resp(RPEL_RESP_SIZE);
+ if (!resp) {
+ kfree(req);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
req[1] = SMP_REPORT_PHY_ERR_LOG;
req[9] = phy->number;
> It looks like disc_resp could use a little love too (it's using the req
> alloc routines).
>
I'll take a look at that later.
--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists