[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87prtw2413.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:02:16 +0100
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Gadi Oxman <gadio@...vision.net.il>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide-tape: Avoid potential null pointer dereference in idetape_abort_pipeline()
Hi Jesper,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com> writes:
> If a NULL 'new_last_stage' is passed to idetape_abort_pipeline() then
> we'll dereference a NULL pointer and go *boom*.
> The function does test for a null pointer, unfortunately it only does it
> after having already dereferenced it.
Did you hit an oops because of this?
> @@ -814,11 +814,14 @@ static void idetape_abort_pipeline(ide_drive_t *drive,
> idetape_stage_t *new_last_stage)
> {
> idetape_tape_t *tape = drive->driver_data;
> - idetape_stage_t *stage = new_last_stage->next;
> + idetape_stage_t *stage = NULL;
> idetape_stage_t *nstage;
>
> debug_log(DBG_PROCS, "%s: Enter %s\n", tape->name, __func__);
>
> + if (new_last_stage)
> + stage = new_last_stage->next;
> +
> while (stage) {
> nstage = stage->next;
> idetape_kfree_stage(tape, stage);
] --tape->nr_stages;
] --tape->nr_pending_stages;
] stage = nstage;
] }
] if (new_last_stage)
] new_last_stage->next = NULL;
... because if not, and new_last_stage will never be NULL at all in this
function, the check here could be removed instead of adding another one.
Or perhaps a BUG_ON(!stage) in idetape_end_request() already?
Bartlomiej, please have a look at the following patch. Should all of
these hand-checks in the file be replaced by BUG_ON()s? Or be removed
completely?
Hannes
--
Turn possible NULL-pointer dereference in idetape_active_next_stage()
into an explicit bug and remove the warn-only checking for it.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
---
The explicit checking of @stage indicates that someone was expecting
that it could be NULL here. Could someone with real understanding of
the code check if the condition is realistic?
diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c
index 43e0e05..b63f928 100644
--- a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c
@@ -724,17 +724,15 @@ static void idetape_analyze_error(ide_drive_t *drive, u8 *sense)
static void idetape_activate_next_stage(ide_drive_t *drive)
{
+ struct request *rq;
idetape_tape_t *tape = drive->driver_data;
idetape_stage_t *stage = tape->next_stage;
- struct request *rq = &stage->rq;
debug_log(DBG_PROCS, "Enter %s\n", __func__);
- if (stage == NULL) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "ide-tape: bug: Trying to activate a non"
- " existing stage\n");
- return;
- }
+ BUG_ON(!stage);
+
+ rq = &stage->rq;
rq->rq_disk = tape->disk;
rq->buffer = NULL;
--
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