[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160217023127.GG17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:31:27 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] netfilter: fix IS_ERR_VALUE usage
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> IS_ERR_VALUE should be used only with unsigned long type.
> Otherwise it can work incorrectly. To achieve this function
> xt_percpu_counter_alloc is modified to return unsigned long,
> and its result is assigned to temporary variable to perform
> error checking, before assigning to .pcnt field.
Wrong fix, IMO. Just have an anon union of u64 pcnt and
struct xt_counters __percpu *pcpu in there. And make this
> +static inline unsigned long xt_percpu_counter_alloc(void)
> {
> if (nr_cpu_ids > 1) {
> void __percpu *res = __alloc_percpu(sizeof(struct xt_counters),
> sizeof(struct xt_counters));
>
> if (res == NULL)
> - return (u64) -ENOMEM;
> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> - return (u64) (__force unsigned long) res;
> + return (__force unsigned long) res;
> }
>
> return 0;
take struct xt_counters * and return 0 or -ENOMEM. Storing the result of
allocation in ->pcpu of passed structure.
I mean, look at the callers -
> - e->counters.pcnt = xt_percpu_counter_alloc();
> - if (IS_ERR_VALUE(e->counters.pcnt))
> + pcnt = xt_percpu_counter_alloc();
> + if (IS_ERR_VALUE(pcnt))
> return -ENOMEM;
> + e->counters.pcnt = pcnt;
should be
if (xt_percpu_counter_alloc(&e->counters) < 0)
return -ENOMEM;
and similar for the rest of callers. Moreover, if you look at the _users_
of that fields, you'll see that a bunch of those actually want to use
->pcpu instead of doing all those casts.
Really, that's the point - IS_ERR_VALUE is a big red flag saying "we need
to figure out what's going on in that place", which does include reading
through the code. Mechanical "solutions" like that only hide the problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists