linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 113/190] Revert "x86/hpet: Prevent potential NULL pointer dereference"

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: <87im4dx5cc.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:33:07 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>,
        kjlu@....edu, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 113/190] Revert "x86/hpet: Prevent potential NULL pointer dereference"

On Wed, Apr 21 2021 at 12:49, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:59:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
>> index 08651a4e6aa0..0515a97bf6f5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
>> @@ -930,8 +930,6 @@ int __init hpet_enable(void)
>>  		return 0;
>>  
>>  	hpet_set_mapping();
>> -	if (!hpet_virt_address)
>> -		return 0;
>>  
>>  	/* Validate that the config register is working */
>>  	if (!hpet_cfg_working())
>
> FWIW, this patch looks harmless. It is checking for a failure in
> hpet_set_mapping(), and avoids the following code from performing
> 0-offset reads. hpet_set_mapping() is likely to never fail in real-world
> situations. *shrug*

'likely never to fail' is clearly a receipe for disaster and you should
know that.

> I think it would make more sense for the check to live in
> hpet_cfg_working(), though.

No. That does not make any sense at all.

The proper change would have been to make hpet_set_mapping() return
an error/success code and act on that.

But that does _NOT_ make the patch invalid.

I'm pretty sure that I looked at it and thought about the proper
solution (see above) and then shrugged it off because of overload...

Thanks,

        tglx