netdev - Re: [PATCH] can: fix warning in bcm_connect/proc

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: <CAAeHK+yJA=h7znkP0s2pQbXif3+7rGSgtpOO0EaP3kW-JZGjeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:12:57 +0200
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: fix warning in bcm_connect/proc_register

Hi Oliver,

I can confirm that your patch fixes the warnings for me.

Tested-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Oliver Hartkopp
>> <socketcan@...tkopp.net> wrote:
>>>         if (proc_dir) {
>>>                 /* unique socket address as filename */
>>>                 sprintf(bo->procname, "%lu", sock_i_ino(sk));
>>>                 bo->bcm_proc_read = proc_create_data(bo->procname, 0644,
>>>                                                      proc_dir,
>>>                                                      &bcm_proc_fops, sk);
>>> +               if (!bo->bcm_proc_read) {
>>> +                       ret = -ENOMEM;
>>> +                       goto fail;
>>> +               }
>>
>> Well, I meant we need to call proc_create_data() once per socket,
>> so we need a check before proc_create_data() too.
>
> Hmm, bo->bound should guarantee it, so never mind, your patch
> looks fine.