linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] devres: handle zero size in devm

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: <9cd4521b-aba0-616b-8957-8f21b9ba3068@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:11:02 +0100
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
CC:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] devres: handle zero size in devm_kmalloc()


On 10/07/2020 17:03, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:46 PM Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bartosz,
>>
>> On 29/06/2020 07:50, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>>>
>>> Make devm_kmalloc() behave similarly to non-managed kmalloc(): return
>>> ZERO_SIZE_PTR when requested size is 0. Update devm_kfree() to handle
>>> this case.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/base/devres.c | 9 ++++++---
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/devres.c b/drivers/base/devres.c
>>> index 1df1fb10b2d9..ed615d3b9cf1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/base/devres.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/base/devres.c
>>> @@ -819,6 +819,9 @@ void *devm_kmalloc(struct device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
>>>  {
>>>       struct devres *dr;
>>>
>>> +     if (unlikely(!size))
>>> +             return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
>>> +
>>>       /* use raw alloc_dr for kmalloc caller tracing */
>>>       dr = alloc_dr(devm_kmalloc_release, size, gfp, dev_to_node(dev));
>>>       if (unlikely(!dr))
>>> @@ -950,10 +953,10 @@ void devm_kfree(struct device *dev, const void *p)
>>>       int rc;
>>>
>>>       /*
>>> -      * Special case: pointer to a string in .rodata returned by
>>> -      * devm_kstrdup_const().
>>> +      * Special cases: pointer to a string in .rodata returned by
>>> +      * devm_kstrdup_const() or NULL/ZERO ptr.
>>>        */
>>> -     if (unlikely(is_kernel_rodata((unsigned long)p)))
>>> +     if (unlikely(is_kernel_rodata((unsigned long)p) || ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(p)))
>>>               return;
>>>
>>>       rc = devres_destroy(dev, devm_kmalloc_release,
>>
>>
>> This change caught a bug in one of our Tegra drivers, which I am in the
>> process of fixing. Once I bisected to this commit it was easy to track
>> down, but I am wondering if there is any reason why we don't add a
>> WARN_ON() if size is 0 in devm_kmalloc? It was essentially what I ended
>> up doing to find the bug.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> --
>> nvpublic
> 
> Hi Jon,
> 
> this is in line with what the regular kmalloc() does. If size is zero,
> it returns ZERO_SIZE_PTR. It's not an error condition. Actually in
> user-space malloc() does a similar thing: for size == 0 it allocates
> one-byte and returns a pointer to it (at least in glibc).


Yes that's fine, I was just wondering if there is any reason not to WARN
as well?

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic