linux-kernel - kmallocs with swapped parameters in fs/dlm/lock.c

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:30:32 +0100
From:	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>
To:	teigland@...hat.com
Cc:	jj@...osbits.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: kmallocs with swapped parameters in fs/dlm/lock.c

Hi David,
  Sparse spotted a couple of places in fs/dlm/lock.c where the size/flags
parameters to kmalloc got swapped:

The sparse output is:
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:42: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different base types)
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:42:    expected unsigned long [unsigned] [usertype] size
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:42:    got restricted gfp_t
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:64: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:64:    expected restricted gfp_t [usertype] flags
fs/dlm/lock.c:852:64:    got unsigned long
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:27: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different base types)
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:27:    expected unsigned long [unsigned] [usertype] size
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:27:    got restricted gfp_t
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:39: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:39:    expected restricted gfp_t [usertype] flags
fs/dlm/lock.c:4136:39:    got unsigned long

Line 852 is:
                        warned = kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL, num_nodes * sizeof(int));
Line 4136 is:
        ms_stub = kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL, sizeof(struct dlm_message));

and at least one of the defs of kmalloc is:
slab_def.h:static __always_inline void *kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)

Given that I haven't got a clue how to test a dlm, it's probably
best that you patch it.

Jesper:
  I noticed in your patch:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/2/90

where you had done a kmalloc->kzalloc transform you kept the swap.

This looks like new code in 3.0rc so I don't think you could quite
call it a regression, but it should probably be fixed fairly quickly
I guess.

Dave
-- 
 -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    |       Running GNU/Linux       | Happy  \ 
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org |                               | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/
--
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/