[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6CE8A8F1-EA1D-489D-BA4A-E9E02C0B43E2@cs.ucr.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 23:44:20 -0700
From: Chengyu Song <csong@...ucr.edu>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Yizhuo Zhai <yzhai003@....edu>, mingo@...nel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Zhiyun Qian <zhiyunq@...ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/exit.c: pointer sighand could be uninitialized
Right. Should have checked the commit history ... this has been brought up before:
> Peter Zijlstra - May 18, 2016, 5:02 p.m.
>
> > +struct task_struct *task_rcu_dereference(struct task_struct **ptask)
> > +{
> > + struct task_struct *task;
> > + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>
> I think that needs: ' = NULL',
and led to the comments added there.
Sorry for wasting your time.
-chengyu
> On May 2, 2018, at 10:06 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 06:48:57PM -0700, Yizhuo Zhai wrote:
>> Variable 'sighand' could be uninitialized if probe_kernel_address fails
>> (-EFAULT). The later use in the if statement may lead to undefined behavior.
>
> Excuse me, but that's nonsense. The value *copied* into it (in case
> probe_kernel_address() has not failed) may be just as uninitialized.
> If mere "compare uninitialized pointer value to NULL" can cause nasal demons to fly,
> * we are screwed anyway
> * the piece of crap compiler should be printed on sandpaper and used to
> polish its authors.
>
> Read the comments in there, please. Especially the one regarding the second case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists