linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix exception handling in shared_policy

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

Message-ID: <22a1ec75-155a-2392-ce39-4bca3fc081eb@suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 18:30:02 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kosaki Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:     cocci@...ia.fr, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix exception handling in
 shared_policy_replace()

Your patch doesn't apply, seems like it uses spaces instead of tabs. Also I
can't use 'b4' to download it as there are multiple different patches using
the same message-id:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/6e9ca062-939b-af96-c8ff-56ad485d6e79@web.de/

Re: subject, I don't see a bug that this would fix. You could say it's
"cleanup" and this function could use one, but for a cleanup it's not
improving the situation much.

On 3/23/23 18:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 18:18:59 +0100
> 
> The label “err_out” was used to jump to another pointer check despite of
> the detail in the implementation of the function “shared_policy_replace”
> that it was determined already that a corresponding variable contained a
> null pointer because of a failed call of the function “kmem_cache_alloc”.
> 
> 1. Use more appropriate labels instead.
> 
> 2. The implementation of the function “mpol_put” contains a pointer check
>    for its single input parameter.
>    Thus delete a redundant check in the caller.
> 
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Fixes: 42288fe366c4f1ce7522bc9f27d0bc2a81c55264 ("mm: mempolicy: Convert shared_policy mutex to spinlock")

Again this is not a fix.

> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> ---
>  mm/mempolicy.c | 11 +++++------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> index a256a241fd1d..fb0485688dcb 100644
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -2736,13 +2736,12 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
>          sp_insert(sp, new);
>      write_unlock(&sp->lock);
>      ret = 0;
> +put_mpol:
> +    mpol_put(mpol_new);
>  
> -err_out:
> -    if (mpol_new)
> -        mpol_put(mpol_new);
>      if (n_new)
>          kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, n_new);
> -
> +exit:
>      return ret;
>  
>  alloc_new:
> @@ -2750,10 +2749,10 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
>      ret = -ENOMEM;
>      n_new = kmem_cache_alloc(sn_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
>      if (!n_new)
> -        goto err_out;
> +        goto exit;

Just "return ret" and no need for exit label?

>      mpol_new = kmem_cache_alloc(policy_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
>      if (!mpol_new)
> -        goto err_out;
> +        goto put_mpol;

We are doing this because mpol_new == NULL, so we know there's no reason to
do mpol_put(), we could jump to the freeing of n_new.

>      atomic_set(&mpol_new->refcnt, 1);
>      goto restart;
>  }
> --
> 2.40.0
> 
> 
>