linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] fs: ntfs3: Add check for mft_ni in mi

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y8IP5JJW/wPy/Wb4@ZenIV>
Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2023 02:13:56 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
Cc:     almaz.alexandrovich@...agon-software.com, edward.lo@...ergroup.io,
        ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        TOTE Robot <oslab@...nghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] fs: ntfs3: Add check for mft_ni in mi_read()

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 09:54:41AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> In a previous commit 2681631c2973, the parameter ni of
> attr_load_runs_vcn() can be NULL, and thus a NULL check is added.
> 
> However, in the same call stack, this variable is also dereferenced in
> mi_read():
> 
> mi_read()
>   ni_lock(mft_ni);
>     attr_load_runs_vcn(mft_ni)
>       if (ni) -> Add a check by previous commit (ni is mft_ni)
>   ni_unlock(mft_ni);
> 
> Thus, to avoid possible null-pointer dereferences, mft_ni should be
> also checked in mi_read().
> 
> These results are reported by a static tool designed by myself

No, it should not.  ni_lock(mft_ni) is called only if rw_lock
is not NULL.  The only assignment of non-NULL to that variable is
here:

        if (is_mounted(sbi)) {
                if (!is_mft) {
                        rw_lock = &mft_ni->file.run_lock;
                        down_read(rw_lock);
                }
        }

Note that it would have already oopsed had mft_ni been NULL.

The logics might or might not be wrong there, but could we please
stop obfuscating it by checks piled higher and deeper just in case?

Incidentally, I hope the pattern that triggered here is not

	f() checks for its argument being NULL, one of the callers of f() passes it a pointer
	therefore that pointer might be NULL

for obvious reasons...