linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] RDMA/srpt: Fix error return code in srpt_cm_req

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:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:46:26 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@...wei.com>, dledford@...hat.com,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, target-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rui.xiang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] RDMA/srpt: Fix error return code in
 srpt_cm_req_recv()

On 4/12/21 11:09 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:50:30AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 4/8/21 4:31 AM, Wang Wensheng wrote:
>>> Fix to return a negative error code from the error handling
>>> case instead of 0, as done elsewhere in this function.
>>>
>>> Fixes: db7683d7deb2 ("IB/srpt: Fix login-related race conditions")
>>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@...wei.com>
>>>  drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c | 1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
>>> index 98a393d..ea44780 100644
>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
>>> @@ -2382,6 +2382,7 @@ static int srpt_cm_req_recv(struct srpt_device *const sdev,
>>>  		pr_info("rejected SRP_LOGIN_REQ because target %s_%d is not enabled\n",
>>>  			dev_name(&sdev->device->dev), port_num);
>>>  		mutex_unlock(&sport->mutex);
>>> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>>>  		goto reject;
>>>  	}
>>
>> Please fix the Hulk Robot. The following code occurs three lines above
>> the modified code:
>>
>> 	ret = -EINVAL;
> 
> That is a different if.
> 
> The patch looks correct to me, please check again:
> 
> 	ret = srpt_create_ch_ib(ch);
> 	if (ret) {
> 	// Ret is proven to be 0
> 	
> 	[..]
> 
> 	if (!sport->enabled) {
> 		rej->reason = cpu_to_be32(
> 				SRP_LOGIN_REJ_INSUFFICIENT_RESOURCES);
> 		pr_info("rejected SRP_LOGIN_REQ because target %s_%d is not enabled\n",
> 			dev_name(&sdev->device->dev), port_num);
> 		goto reject; // Ret is 0
> 
> If there is an assignment to ret between those two blocks it is hidden..

Right, I was looking at another if-statement in the same function.

Bart.