linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: don't dereference 'workload' before null checking it

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1c98c69b-694e-2e1e-ed96-748552c7d6d9@canonical.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:24:40 +0000
From:   Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: don't dereference 'workload' before null
 checking it

On 21/03/18 19:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Colin Ian King (2018-03-21 19:18:28)
>> On 21/03/18 19:09, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 19:06 +0000, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>>
>>>> The pointer workload is dereferenced before it is null checked, hence
>>>> there is a potential for a null pointer dereference on workload. Fix
>>>> this by only dereferencing workload after it is null checked.
>>>>
>>>> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1466017 ("Dereference before null check")
>>>
>>> Maybe true, but is it possible for workload to be null?
>>> Maybe the null test should be removed instead.
>>
>> From what I understand from the static analysis, there may be a
>> potential for workload to be null, I couldn't rule it out so I went with
>> the more paranoid stance of keeping the null check in.
> 
> Not sr_oa_regs() problem if workload is NULL, that's the callers. I
> reviewed the identical patch yesterday, and we ended up with removing
> the NULL checks, just keeping the workload->id != RCS.
> -Chris
> 
Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification Chris.