linux-kernel - Re: dm-region-hash: Fix a missing-check bug in __rh

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:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:21:59 -0400
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@...il.com>, agk@...hat.com,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dm-region-hash: Fix a missing-check bug in __rh_alloc()

On Wed, Jun 05 2019 at  2:05am -0400,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:

> On 24. 05. 19, 5:12, Gen Zhang wrote:
> > In function __rh_alloc(), the pointer nreg is allocated a memory space
> > via kmalloc(). And it is used in the following codes. However, when 
> > there is a memory allocation error, kmalloc() fails. Thus null pointer
> > dereference may happen. And it will cause the kernel to crash. Therefore,
> > we should check the return value and handle the error.
> > Further, in __rh_find(), we should also check the return value and
> > handle the error.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@...il.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-region-hash.c b/drivers/md/dm-region-hash.c
> > index 1f76045..2fa1641 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/dm-region-hash.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-region-hash.c
> > @@ -290,8 +290,11 @@ static struct dm_region *__rh_alloc(struct dm_region_hash *rh, region_t region)
> >  	struct dm_region *reg, *nreg;
> >  
> >  	nreg = mempool_alloc(&rh->region_pool, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > -	if (unlikely(!nreg))
> > +	if (unlikely(!nreg)) {
> >  		nreg = kmalloc(sizeof(*nreg), GFP_NOIO | __GFP_NOFAIL);
> > +		if (!nreg)
> > +			return NULL;
> 
> What's the purpose of checking NO_FAIL allocations?

There isn't, that was already pointed out in a different thread for this
same patch (think patch was posted twice):
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2019-May/msg00124.html

Mike