linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging/lustre/llite: Use memdup_user() rather than duplicating its implementation

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608210628040.4152@hadrien>
Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2016 06:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/lustre/llite: Use memdup_user() rather than
 duplicating its implementation



On Sun, 21 Aug 2016, Christophe JAILLET wrote:

> Le 21/08/2016 à 11:45, SF Markus Elfring a écrit :
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 11:30:57 +0200
> >
> > Reuse existing functionality from memdup_user() instead of keeping
> > duplicate source code.
> >
> > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > ---
> >   drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c | 12 +++---------
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c
> > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c
> > index 031c9e4..8b70e42 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c
> > @@ -1676,14 +1676,9 @@ out_poll:
> >   	case LL_IOC_QUOTACTL: {
> >   		struct if_quotactl *qctl;
> >   -		qctl = kzalloc(sizeof(*qctl), GFP_NOFS);
> Same as previously reported in another patch, GFP_NOFS has not the same
> meaning than GPF_KERNEL.
> So your proposed clean-up is not 100% equivalent.
>
> Are your sure that GPF_KERNEL instead of GFP_NOFS is right in this code?
>
> Maybe, the coccinelle check should be tweak to only spot "kzalloc(...,
> GFP_KERNEL)" allocation?

To my dim recollection, GFP_NOFS is not actually allowed in a place where
copy_from_user is being used.  copy_from_user can block due to page
faults, and GFP_NOFS is used when a certain kind of blocking is not
allowed.  So if the code really needs GFP_NOFS, then something else is
wrong.

The semantic patch intentionally does not specify GFP_KERNEL for this
reason, ie so that these issues will come up and be discussed.  On the
ther hand I agree about the GFP_DMA case, since that doesn't relate to
blocking, as far as I know.  The semantic patch should be updated to not
make/propose the change in that case.

julia

>
> > -		if (!qctl)
> > -			return -ENOMEM;
> > -
> > -		if (copy_from_user(qctl, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(*qctl))) {
> > -			rc = -EFAULT;
> > -			goto out_quotactl;
> > -		}
> > +		qctl = memdup_user((void __user *)arg, sizeof(*qctl));
> > +		if (IS_ERR(qctl))
> > +			return PTR_ERR(qctl);
> >     		rc = quotactl_ioctl(sbi, qctl);
> >   @@ -1691,7 +1686,6 @@ out_poll:
> >   					    sizeof(*qctl)))
> >   			rc = -EFAULT;
> >   -out_quotactl:
> >   		kfree(qctl);
> >   		return rc;
> >   	}
>
>
>
> ---
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le
> logiciel antivirus Avast.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>