linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] backing-dev: no need to check return value of debugfs

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]

Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:33:48 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backing-dev: no need to check return value of
 debugfs_create functions

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:19:08PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-01-22 17:25:03 [+0100], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  static void bdi_debug_unregister(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	debugfs_remove(bdi->debug_stats);
> > > > -	debugfs_remove(bdi->debug_dir);
> > > > +	debugfs_remove_recursive(bdi->debug_dir);
> > > 
> > > this won't remove it.
> > 
> > Which is fine, you don't care.
> 
> but if you cat the stats file then it will dereference the bdi struct
> which has been free(), right?

Maybe, I don't know, your code is long gone, it doesn't matter :)

> > But step back, how could that original call be NULL?  That only happens
> > if you pass it a bad parent dentry (which you didn't), or the system is
> > totally out of memory (in which case you don't care as everything else
> > is on fire).
> 
> debugfs_get_inode() could do -ENOMEM and then the directory creation
> fails with NULL.

And if that happens, your system has worse problems :)

> 
> > > If you return for "debug_dir == NULL" then it is a nice cleanup.
> > 
> > No, that's not a valid thing to check for, you should not care as it
> > will not happen.  And if it does happen, it's ok, it's only debugfs, no
> > one can rely on it, it is only for debugging.
> 
> It might happen with ENOMEM as of now. It could happen for other reasons
> in future if the code changes.

As it's been that way for over a decade, I think we will be fine :)
If it changes in the future, in some way that actually matters, I'll go
back and fix up all of the callers.

thanks,

greg k-h