linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] xfrm: Add error handling when nla_put

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: <20241113175909.GB4507@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:59:09 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: "Everest K.C." <everestkc@...restkc.com.np>,
	steffen.klassert@...unet.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] xfrm: Add error handling when nla_put_u32()
 returns an error

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 04:10:15PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 10:59:39AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 04:36:06PM -0700, Everest K.C. wrote:
> > > Error handling is missing when call to nla_put_u32() fails.
> > > Handle the error when the call to nla_put_u32() returns an error.
> > > 
> > > The error was reported by Coverity Scan.
> > > Report:
> > > CID 1601525: (#1 of 1): Unused value (UNUSED_VALUE)
> > > returned_value: Assigning value from nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_SA_PCPU, x->pcpu_num)
> > > to err here, but that stored value is overwritten before it can be used
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 1ddf9916ac09 ("xfrm: Add support for per cpu xfrm state handling.")
> > > Signed-off-by: Everest K.C. <everestkc@...restkc.com.np>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> > 
> > For future reference, I think the appropriate target for this tree
> > is ipsec-next rather than next.
> > 
> > 	Subject: [PATCH ipsec-next] xfrm: ...
> 
> All these trees are a pain in the butt to track.  It's fine for people who only
> work in one tree but for people doing static checker stuff, then we have to
> deal with all 388 trees in linux-next.
> 
> I've changed my scripts to add [next] to my patches if Linus hasn't merged the
> commit from the Fixes tag.  I still add net and net-next by hand but I'm going
> to just automate that as well because doing it by hand has been failure prone.
> 
> But then if we try to add all the ipsec or whatever trees, it just becomes
> unworkable.  I started to write a script which would look do the --is-ancestor
> check based on the Fixes tag, but it take forever to update the git trees.  I
> wasn't able to figure out a way to make this work.
> 
> Also once Linus merges the commit, there is no way to tell which tree the commit
> goes to so it only applies to linux-next.  For networking, I already have the
> script that greps the patch for -w net and grep -vw wireless.  But I don't want
> to maintain a list greps for everyone's tree.
> 
> A lot of this scripting could be built into the CI system.  The CI system is
> already doing some scripting based on the subject but we could do it based on
> the Fixes tag instead.  If there isn't a Fixes tag, then it should go to
> net-next.

Hi Dan,

I take your point that this is not very friendly to people sending
the occasional patch (towards Networking). And certainly there
is room to improve the CI.

FWIIW, my goto when preparing patches is something like the following.
Because at least for Networking, we do try to make MAINTAINERS reflect
reality:

./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --scm net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c