[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YsLxOkApqKPQ8Bep@ZenIV>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 14:55:06 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Vitaly Buka <vitalybuka@...gle.com>,
linux-toolchains <linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 43/45] namei: initialize parameters passed to
step_into()
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 02:44:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 10:20:53AM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
>
> > What makes you think they are false positives? Is the scenario I
> > described above:
> >
> > """
> > In particular, if the call to lookup_fast() in walk_component()
> > returns NULL, and lookup_slow() returns a valid dentry, then the
> > `seq` and `inode` will remain uninitialized until the call to
> > step_into()
> > """
> >
> > impossible?
>
> Suppose step_into() has been called in non-RCU mode. The first
> thing it does is
> int err = handle_mounts(nd, dentry, &path, &seq);
> if (err < 0)
> return ERR_PTR(err);
>
> And handle_mounts() in non-RCU mode is
> path->mnt = nd->path.mnt;
> path->dentry = dentry;
> if (nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU) {
> [unreachable code]
> }
> [code not touching seqp]
> if (unlikely(ret)) {
> [code not touching seqp]
> } else {
> *seqp = 0; /* out of RCU mode, so the value doesn't matter */
> }
> return ret;
Make that
[code assigning ret a non-negative value and never using seqp]
if (unlikely(ret)) {
[code never using seqp or ret]
} else {
*seqp = 0; /* out of RCU mode, so the value doesn't matter */
}
return ret;
so if (err < 0) in the caller is equivalent to if (err).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists