linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: ax88179: add proper error handling of usb read errors

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:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 18:32:49 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     David Kahurani <k.kahurani@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot <syzbot+d3dbdf31fbe9d8f5f311@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, jgg@...pe.ca, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, arnd@...db.de,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ax88179: add proper error handling of usb read
 errors

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:36:57PM +0300, David Kahurani wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:32 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dan
> 
> > >       int ret;
> > >       int (*fn)(struct usbnet *, u8, u8, u16, u16, void *, u16);
> > > @@ -201,9 +202,12 @@ static int __ax88179_read_cmd(struct usbnet *dev, u8 cmd, u16 value, u16 index,
> > >       ret = fn(dev, cmd, USB_DIR_IN | USB_TYPE_VENDOR | USB_RECIP_DEVICE,
> > >                value, index, data, size);
> > >
> > > -     if (unlikely(ret < 0))
> > > +     if (unlikely(ret < size)) {
> > > +             ret = ret < 0 ? ret : -ENODATA;
> > > +
> > >               netdev_warn(dev->net, "Failed to read reg index 0x%04x: %d\n",
> > >                           index, ret);
> > > +     }
> > >
> > >       return ret;
> >
> > It would be better to make __ax88179_read_cmd() return 0 on success
> > instead of returning size on success.  Non-standard returns lead to bugs.
> >
> 
> I don't suppose this would have much effect on the structure of the
> code and indeed plan to do this but just some minor clarification.
> 
> Isn't it standard for reader functions to return the number of bytes read?
> 

Not really.

There are some functions that do it, but it has historically lead to bug
after bug.  For example, see commit 719b8f2850d3 ("USB: add
usb_control_msg_send() and usb_control_msg_recv()") where USB is moving
away from that to avoid bugs.

If you return zero on success then it's simple:

	if (ret)
		return ret;

If you return the bytes people will try call kinds of things:

	if (ret)
		return ret;

Bug: Now the driver is broken.  (Not everyone can test the hardware).

	if (ret != size)
		return ret;

Bug: returns a positive.

	if (ret != size)
		return -EIO;

Bug: forgot to propagate the error code.

	if (ret < sizeof(foo))
		return -EIO;

Bug: because of type promotion negative error codes are treated as
     success.

	if (ret < 0)
		return ret;

Bug: buffer partially filled.  Information leak.

If you return the bytes then the only correct way to write error
handling is:

	if (ret < 0)
		return ret;
	if (ret != size)
		return -EIO;

regards,
dan carpenter