linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] lag_conf: Added pointer check and continue

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, 16 Nov 2022 10:39:54 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Denis Arefev <arefev@...mel.ru>
Cc:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lvc-patchest@...uxtesting.org, trufanov@...mel.ru, vfh@...mel.ru,
        Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lag_conf: Added pointer check and continue

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:13:36AM +0300, Denis Arefev wrote:
> Return value of a function 'kmalloc_array' is dereferenced at
> lag_conf.c:347 without checking for null,
> but it is usually checked for this function.
> 
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Denis Arefev <arefev@...mel.ru>

Thanks Denis,

I'll let me colleague Yinjun review the functional change,
although, based on his earlier feedback, it does look good to me.

>From my side I have two nits:

1. I think the patch prefix should be 'nfp: flower:'
   i.e., the patch subject should be more like
   [PATCH v2] nfp: flower: handle allocation failure in LAG delayed work

2. Inline, below.

Kind regards,
Simon

> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/lag_conf.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/lag_conf.c
> index 63907aeb3884..1aaec4cb9f55 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/lag_conf.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/lag_conf.c
> @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ static void nfp_fl_lag_do_work(struct work_struct *work)
> 
>         mutex_lock(&lag->lock);
>         list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, storage, &lag->group_list, list) {
> -               struct net_device *iter_netdev, **acti_netdevs;
> +               struct net_device *iter_netdev, **acti_netdevs = NULL;

2. I don't think it is necessary (or therefore desirable)
   to initialise acti_netdevs to NULL.
   As far as I can tell the variable is already always
   set before being used.

...