linux-kernel - Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: include: lustre_update.h: Fix for possible null pointer dereference

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

Message-ID: <54CA8CA7.2070403@cray.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:40:23 -0600
From:	Frank Zago <fzago@...y.com>
To:	Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>
CC:	<HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: include: lustre_update.h:
 Fix for possible null pointer dereference

On 01/29/2015 12:47 PM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> Fix a possible null pointer dereference, there is
> otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference.
>
> This was found using a static code analysis program called cppcheck
>
> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h |    4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
> index 84defce..00e1361 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_update.h
> @@ -165,12 +165,14 @@ static inline int update_get_reply_buf(struct update_reply *reply, void **buf,
>   	int  result;
>
>   	ptr = update_get_buf_internal(reply, index, &size);
> +
> +	LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));

Now size is tested before result. So it could assert if result < 0, 
while the function would have returned before.

> +
>   	result = *(int *)ptr;
>
>   	if (result < 0)
>   		return result;
>
> -	LASSERT((ptr != NULL && size >= sizeof(int)));
>   	*buf = ptr + sizeof(int);
>   	return size - sizeof(int);
>   }
>

--
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/