linux-kernel - Re: [linux-next PATCH] rapidio: Fix error handling path

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: <20200916100729.GG18329@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:07:29 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     mporter@...nel.crashing.org, alex.bou9@...il.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gustavoars@...nel.org,
        jhubbard@...dia.com, madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-next PATCH] rapidio: Fix error handling path

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 01:02:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:12:17AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> > There is an error when pin_user_pages_fast() returns -ERRNO and
> > inside error handling path driver end up calling unpin_user_pages()
> > with -ERRNO which is not correct.
> > 
> > This patch will fix the problem.
> 
> There are a few ways we could prevent bug in the future.
> 
> 1) This could have been caught with existing static analysis tools
>    which warn about when a value is set but not used.
> 
> 2) I've created a Smatch check which warngs about:
> 
> 	drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c:955 rio_dma_transfer() warn: unpinning negative pages 'nr_pages'
> 
>    I'll test it out tonight and see how well it works.  I don't
>    immediately see any other bugs allthough Smatch doesn't like the code
>    in siw_umem_release().  It uses "min_t(int" which suggests that
>    negative pages are okay.
> 
> 	   int to_free = min_t(int, PAGES_PER_CHUNK, num_pages);
> 
> 3) We could add a check in unpin_user_pages().
> 
> 	if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR_VALUE(npages)))
> 		return;
> 
> It's not possible to pin more than "ULONG_MAX - 4095" because otherwise
> returning error pointers wouldn't work.  So this check can't break
> anything and it could prevent a crash.

Actually pin_user_pages_fast() returns an int.  It's not possible to
pin more than INT_MAX.

regards,
dan carpenter