[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101117221126.GD26184@shisha.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:11:26 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <virtuoso@...nd.org>
To: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Shishkin <virtuoso@...nd.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ARM ETM driver: Do not deref potentially null
pointer and don't allocate and free mem while holding lock.
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 09:38:55PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, Colin Cross wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Looking at etb_read() in arch/arm/kernel/etm.c I noticed two things.
> > >
> > > 1. We are allocting and freeing 'buf' with vmalloc() while holding a
> > > mutex locked. I cannot see any reason why we have to hold the mutex
> > > just to allocate and free a bit of memory, so I moved it outside the
> > > lock.
> > >
> > > 2. If the memory allocation fails we'll dereference a null pointer
> > > further down since we never check the vmalloc() return value.
> > > for (i = 0; i < length / 4; i++)
> > > buf[i] = etb_readl(t, ETBR_READMEM);
> > > The best way I could find to handle this was to simply return 0 when
> > > we can't allocate memory, but there might be a better option that I
> > > just couldn't find - in any case it is better than crashing the
> > > kernel.
> > >
> > > Please consider merging, but please also review carefully first since I'm
> > > not familliar with this code.
> > >
> > > CC me on replies please.
> > >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
> > > ---
> > > etm.c | 8 +++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > note: completely untested patch since I have neither hardware nor
> > > toolchain to test it, so please review carefully and test before applying
> > > it.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/etm.c b/arch/arm/kernel/etm.c
> > > index 11db628..30f845b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/etm.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/etm.c
> > > @@ -274,7 +274,10 @@ static ssize_t etb_read(struct file *file, char __user *data,
> > > long length;
> > > struct tracectx *t = file->private_data;
> > > u32 first = 0;
> > > - u32 *buf;
> > > + u32 *buf = vmalloc(length);
> > You can't move the vmalloc out of the lock, length is uninitialized here
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (!buf)
> > > + return 0;
> > ssize_t is signed so you can return -ENOMEM
> >
>
> Ohh crap, you are of course right in both cases. Not being able to build
> stuff sucks, gcc would have caught this for me :-(
>
> How about this instead?
This looks good. Thanks!
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Acked-by: Alexander Shishkin <virtuoso@...nd.org>
> ---
> etm.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/etm.c b/arch/arm/kernel/etm.c
> index 11db628..41bd60d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/etm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/etm.c
> @@ -293,6 +293,10 @@ static ssize_t etb_read(struct file *file, char __user *data,
>
> length = min(total * 4, (int)len);
> buf = vmalloc(length);
> + if (!buf) {
> + mutex_unlock(&t->mutex);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
>
> dev_dbg(t->dev, "ETB buffer length: %d\n", total);
> dev_dbg(t->dev, "ETB status reg: %x\n", etb_readl(t, ETBR_STATUS));
>
Regards,
--
Alex
--
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