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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 13:17:28 -0400 From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com> To: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se> Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for possible null pointer dereference in auth.c On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se> wrote: > Hi > > I have made a new patch according Sergei specification. > I'll be happy to apply this patch once someone explains to me why we can't just remove that check for cred != NULL, however I'm not applying a patch purely in order to silence a warning from cppcheck. Cheers, Trond > But there remains Tronds question though. > > Best regards > Rickard Strandqvist > > > 2014-05-16 14:19 GMT+02:00 Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>: >> Hello. >> >> >> On 16-05-2014 1:56, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: >> >>> There is otherwise a risk of a possible null pointer dereference. >> >> >>> Was largely found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck. >> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist >>> <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se> >>> --- >>> net/sunrpc/auth.c | 10 +++++++--- >>> 1 fil ändrad, 7 tillägg(+), 3 borttagningar(-) >> >> >>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth.c b/net/sunrpc/auth.c >>> index 5285ead..3a55698 100644 >>> --- a/net/sunrpc/auth.c >>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth.c >>> @@ -801,10 +801,14 @@ rpcauth_invalcred(struct rpc_task *task) >>> { >>> struct rpc_cred *cred = task->tk_rqstp->rq_cred; >>> >>> - dprintk("RPC: %5u invalidating %s cred %p\n", >>> - task->tk_pid, cred->cr_auth->au_ops->au_name, cred); >>> - if (cred) >>> + if (cred) { >>> + dprintk("RPC: %5u invalidating %s cred %p\n", >>> + task->tk_pid, cred->cr_auth->au_ops->au_name, >>> cred); >>> + >>> clear_bit(RPCAUTH_CRED_UPTODATE, &cred->cr_flags); >>> + } >>> + else >> >> >> } and *else* should be on the same line, and there should be {} in the >> *else* arm since there's {} in the *if* arm already, according to >> Documentation/CodingStyle. >> >> >>> + dprintk("RPC: %5u invalidating is NULL\n", task->tk_pid); >> >> >> That's not a proper English, I'm afraid. >> >>> } >> >> >> WBR, Sergei >> >> -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@...marydata.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists