[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0BCA79.4090006@ct.jp.nec.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 16:38:33 +0900
From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
To: Subrata Modak <subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sachin P Sant <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix Warnining in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
Subrata Modak wrote:
> Hello Hiroshi-san,
Hi Subrata,
>
> On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 09:24 +0900, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
>>>>>>> goto badframe;
>>>>>>> - if (__get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask) || (_NSIG_WORDS > 1
>>>>>>> - && __copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
>>>>>>> - sizeof(frame->extramask))))
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if ( (__copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
>>>>>>> + sizeof(frame->extramask)) && _NSIG_WORDS > 1) ||
>>>>>>> + __get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask))
>>>>>>> goto badframe;
>>>>>> I'm not sure why this eliminates that warning.
>>>>>> set.sig[0] may not be initialized too, if __copy_from_user() failed.
>>>>> True, but only when either or both of __copy_from_user() and
>>>>> (_NSIG_WORDS > 1) fails. But in all instances set.sig[1] gets
>>>>> initialized.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have enough time to look at this right now, sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another question, __copy_from_user() will be called even if
>>>>>> _NSIG_WORDS is less than 2, perhaps it never occurs.
>>>>>> I think, to check _NSIG_WORDS > 1 before calling __copy_from_user()
>>>>>> is better.
>>>>> Fine. Let Ingo/Thomas/Peter decide whether they would like this fix or
>>>>> drop it.
>>>> If you get the Acked-by from Hiroshi-san it looks good to me. He
>>>> modified this code last.
>>>>
>>> This seriously looks wrong to me. If _NSIG_WORDS == 1, then calling
>>> __copy_from_user here is a serious error.
>> Right. If _NSIG_WORDS is 1, sigset_t set has only sig[0], writing to
>> set.sig[1] means stack corruption.
>>
>> Subrata, could you try like this?
>> if ((_NSIG_WORDS > 1 && __copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], ...) ||
>> __get_user(set.sig[0], ...))
>>
>>
>
> I tried out and the compiler does not complain in this case.
> Updated Patch below. Please review.
thanks for testing, it looks OK except small nits.
Could you please check with checkpatch.pl?
>
> Signed-Off-By: Subrata Modak <subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
WARNING: Signed-off-by: is the preferred form
> To: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>,
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
> Cc: x86@...nel.org,
> Cc: Sachin P Sant <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
> Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
> Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Subject: Re:[PATCH] Fix Warnining in arch/x86/kernel/signal.c
> ---
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c 2009-05-14 11:27:15.000000000 +0530
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/signal.c 2009-05-14 11:50:52.000000000 +0530
> @@ -576,9 +576,9 @@ unsigned long sys_sigreturn(struct pt_re
>
> if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> goto badframe;
> - if (__get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask) || (_NSIG_WORDS > 1
> - && __copy_from_user(&set.sig[1], &frame->extramask,
> - sizeof(frame->extramask))))
> + if ( (_NSIG_WORDS > 1 && __copy_from_user(&set.sig[1],
ERROR: space prohibited after that open parenthesis '('
> + &frame->extramask, sizeof(frame->extramask))) ||
ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
> + __get_user(set.sig[0], &frame->sc.oldmask))
ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible
Thanks,
Hiroshi
> goto badframe;
>
> sigdelsetmask(&set, ~_BLOCKABLE);
>
> ---
> Regards--
> Subrata
>
>> I wonder whether gcc really complains about the case of
>> __get_user(set.sig[0], ...) failure.
>> Why, the case which sig[0] initialized and sig[1] uninitialized is NG
>> and the case which sig[0] uninitialized and sig[1] initialized is OK.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hiroshi
>
--
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