linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] driver core: ensure a device has valid node id in device

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: <d828d48c-cae7-f3c2-fb2e-c8b25995cbef@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 19:03:30 +0800
From:   Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <mingo@...nel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: ensure a device has valid node id in
 device_add()

On 2019/9/11 15:34, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 11-09-19 15:22:30, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> [...]
>> It seems that there is no protection that prevent setting the node
>> of device to an invalid node.
>> And the kernel does have a few different check now:
>> 1) some does " < 0" check;
>> 2) some does "== NUMA_NO_NODE" check;
>> 3) some does ">= MAX_NUMNODES" check;
>> 4) some does "< 0 || >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(node)" check.
>>
>> We need to be consistent about the checking, right?
> 
> You can try and chase each of them and see what to do with them. I
> suspect they are a result of random attempts to fortify the code in many
> cases. Consistency is certainly good but spreading more checks all over
> the place just adds more cargo cult. Each check should be reasonably
> justified.

Ok, Let me focus on making the node_to_cpumask_map() NUMA_NO_NODE aware
by only checking "node == NUMA_NO_NODE" first.

>