linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ERR_PTR: warn when ERR

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080527130413.14dca0cf.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 27 May 2008 13:04:13 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	adobriyan@...il.com, hannes@...urebad.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ERR_PTR: warn when ERR_PTR parameter is valid argument

On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:50:19 +0200
Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com> wrote:

> Check at runtime whether error argument of ERR_PTR is valid.
> It can catch bugs which possibly lead to oops or panic earlier.
> 
> Currently there are > 600 calls of ERR_PTR with non-constant argument.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
> ---
>  include/linux/err.h |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/err.h b/include/linux/err.h
> index 4773ed3..f7e098e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/err.h
> +++ b/include/linux/err.h
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
>  
> +#include <asm/bug.h>
>  #include <asm/errno.h>
>  
>  /*
> @@ -22,6 +23,7 @@
>  
>  static inline void *__ERR_PTR(long error)
>  {
> +	WARN_ON(!VALID_ERR_PTR_ARG(error));
>  	return (void *) error;
>  }

It would be regrettable to add source-level complexity and runtime cost
to detect this particular bug.  I think it would be better to do this
via static source-code checking if at all possible.

Is there _any_ legitimate use of non-negative EFOO?  There might be
some baroque bits of code which are using non-negative constants in a
non-buggy fashion, but I bet they could be reworked to use negative
constants.

In which case I'd have thought that a script which

a) extracts all the EFOO identifiers from include/*/errno.h and

b) greps the tree for non-negative uses of those

would have 100% coverage?

We might need to touch up some code sites to avoid triggering false
positives and make that script's life a bit easier, but that's fine.
--
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/