linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] parisc: Increase the usage check of kmalloc allocated object a

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: <3a72852c-2f28-2916-f02c-b52cb06efd7d@gmx.de>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:04:33 +0200
From:   Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To:     Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>,
        Li zeming <zeming@...china.com>,
        James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com
Cc:     linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] parisc: Increase the usage check of kmalloc allocated
 object a

On 9/14/22 08:43, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2022, 08:18:19 CEST schrieb Helge Deller:
>> On 9/14/22 08:04, Li zeming wrote:
>>> In the case of memory allocation failure, no alignment operation is
>>> required.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Li zeming <zeming@...china.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>    drivers/parisc/iosapic.c | 4 +++-
>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/parisc/iosapic.c b/drivers/parisc/iosapic.c
>>> index 3a8c98615634..33de438916d3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/parisc/iosapic.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/parisc/iosapic.c
>>> @@ -229,7 +229,9 @@ static struct irt_entry *iosapic_alloc_irt(int
>>> num_entries)>
>>>    	 * 4-byte alignment on 32-bit kernels
>>>    	 */
>>>
>>>    	a = (unsigned long)kmalloc(sizeof(struct irt_entry) * num_entries
> + 8,
>>>    	GFP_KERNEL);>
>>> -	a = (a + 7UL) & ~7UL;
>>> +	if (a)
>>> +		a = (a + 7UL) & ~7UL;
>>> +
>>
>> As you said, the adjustment isn't required, but it's still ok.
>> So I think the additional "if" isn't necessary and so I'm not
>> applying your patch.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks for your help to try to improve the code!
>
> I was about to say the same, but from looking at the code I don't think what
> is in there is correct either. The comment seems outdated, because
> __assume_kmalloc_alignment, which is __alignof__(unsigned long long). This
> code is untouched for the entire git history, so maybe we can just change the
> whole thing to
>
>    return kcalloc(num_entries, sizeof(struct irt_entry))
>
> now?

Yes, your proposal is good.
Anyone want to send a patch (with a small comment that kcalloc() will return
at least the required 8-byte alignment)?

> And these functions end up propagating an allocation error in this file and it
> will never reach kernel/setup.c, which seems bad.

That part I don't understand.
The return value of iosapic_alloc_irt() is checked afterwards, but you probably
meant something else?

> But I guess the only point where this really can go wrong if the PDC
> returns an absurdly large number of entries.
Helge