netdev - Re: [PATCH] tools/libbpf: signedness bug in btf_dedup_ref

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: <20190228133605.GC9806@kadam>
Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:36:05 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/libbpf: signedness bug in btf_dedup_ref_type()

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 06:58:29AM +0000, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/27/19 9:46 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The "ref_type_id" variable needs to be signed for the error handling
> > to work.
> > 
> > Fixes: d5caef5b5655 ("btf: add BTF types deduplication algorithm")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> > ---
> > This goes through the BPF tree probably, although it does apply to
> > net-next.
> > 
> >   tools/lib/bpf/btf.c | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
> > index 68b50e9bbde1..8faed5386124 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/btf.c
> > @@ -2326,7 +2326,8 @@ static int btf_dedup_ref_type(struct btf_dedup *d, __u32 type_id)
> >   	struct btf_type *t, *cand;
> >   	/* if we don't find equivalent type, then we are representative type */
> >   	__u32 new_id = type_id;
> > -	__u32 h, ref_type_id;
> > +	__u32 h; > +	int ref_type_id;
> 
> nit. Maybe you can change to
> 	int ref_type_id;
> 	__u32 h;
> to maintain kernel declaration reverse christmas tree convention?
> 

Yes.  Thanks.  Let me resend.

regards,
dan carpenter