[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140330024701.GA22728@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 04:47:01 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/29] ktap: add bytecode
reader(kernel/trace/ktap/kp_bcread.[c|h])
> +/* Read debug info of a prototype. */
> +static void bcread_dbg(BCReadCtx *ctx, ktap_proto_t *pt, int sizedbg)
> +{
> + void *lineinfo = (void *)proto_lineinfo(pt);
> +
> + bcread_block(ctx, lineinfo, sizedbg);
> + /* Swap lineinfo if the endianess differs. */
Why does this care about endianness? Can't that be handled in the user
space? And why would the user space create different endianness than
the host is?
> + for (i = 0; i < sizekgc; i++, kr++) {
> + int tp = bcread_uint32(ctx);
> + if (tp >= BCDUMP_KGC_STR) {
The signedness handling all over this file is a scary.
What happens if the user puts in negative values or near overflow
values.
Most likely a lot of these checks should be unsigned
and need to be audited again (and ideally fuzzed too)
> +
> + /* Allocate prototype object and initialize its fields. */
> + pt = (ktap_proto_t *)kp_obj_new(ctx->ks, (int)sizept);
Error check?
Lots of other similar cases.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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