linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: lusten: conrpc.c: fix different address space sparse warning

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: <20170329073114.GA8459@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:31:14 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Doug Oucharek <doug.s.oucharek@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lusten: conrpc.c: fix different address space
 sparse warning

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:14:06PM -0300, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> head_up parameter is marked with __user attribute, tmp is filled
> by a copy_from_user from next, that is also marked as __user, so
> tmp.next needs to be "casted" as __user to make sparse happy.

But is it the correct change?

You also have a typo in your subject :(

> Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <marcos.souza.org@...il.com>
> ---
> 
>  this is mt first patch addressing an issue of sparse, so let me know
>  if I misunderstood the error message
> 
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c
> index c6a683b..fb7ad74 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c
> @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ lstcon_rpc_trans_interpreter(struct lstcon_rpc_trans *trans,
>  				   sizeof(struct list_head)))
>  			return -EFAULT;
>  
> -		if (tmp.next == head_up)
> +		if ((struct list_head __user *)tmp.next == head_up)

Aer you sure this is correct?  __user changes for lustre is not
trivial...

How did you test this?

thanks,

greg k-h