linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gfs2: fix 'passing zero to ERR

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0c1ed836c5a306331e1b2a97217c3c9f7e1fb701.camel@mailo.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 13:09:11 +0530
From:   drv <drv@...lo.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc:     Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        gfs2@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gfs2: fix 'passing zero to ERR_PTR()' warning

On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 10:06 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 11:37:42PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > Resolve the following Smatch static checker warning:
> >         fs/gfs2/acl.c:54 __gfs2_get_acl() warn: passing zero to
> > 'ERR_PTR'
> > 
> > by returning NULL when an extended attribute length is zero,
> > instead of
> > passing on zero to the ERR_PTR().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
> > ---
> 
> Passing zero to ERR_PTR() is not a bug.
> 
> You're patch doesn't change how the code works at all, right?  So
> it's
> like a cleanup patch.  But the code was nicer in the original.
> 
> This is just a false positive.  Ignore static checker false
> positives.
> Fix the checker instead.  Although in this case, I can't think of an
> easy way fix the checker.  Perhaps don't print a warning if the
> callers
> check for NULL?
> 
> The passing zero to ERR_PTR() warning is actually a pretty good
> heuristic.  90% of the time in new code this is a real bug.  But in
> old
> code then probably it's 0% real bugs because we've been reviewing
> these
> warnings for over a decade.
> 
> I have a blog which might be useful.
> https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/mixing-error-pointers-and-null/
> 
> When I'm reviewing this patch I think:
> 1) Does gfs2_xattr_acl_get() return zero?  And it does.
> 2) Does that look intentional.  It's harder to tell because there
> aren't
>    comments and it looks like it might be a missing error code.  But
>    when you read it closely then actually it does look intentional.
>    In terms of Smatch, I consider it "intentional" if there is an
>    "error = 0;" within 5 lines for the goto.  (Other languages like
> Rust
>    are better than C because they force everyone to follow the rules.
>    #trolling).
> 3) Do the callers of __gfs2_get_acl() check for NULL and they do.
> 
> So this code is fine.
> 
> I hope this helps you in your review process.  1)  Ignore old
> warnings.
> 2)  Ignore false positives.  3)  If you think it is a bug, then try
> to
> figure out how it will cause a crash.  Look at the caller etc.
> 
Hi Dan,
Thank you for the review, feedback and guidance. This is really
helpful.

regards,
deepak.

> regards,
> dan carpenter
>