netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: nexthop: Fix deadcode issue by performing a proper NULL check

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: <beb306e9-228f-6810-fc77-972e5acb5863@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:37:08 +0300
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, patrickeigensatz@...il.com
Cc:     dsahern@...nel.org, scan-admin@...erity.com, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
        yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: nexthop: Fix deadcode issue by performing a proper
 NULL check

On 02/06/2020 10:23, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 01/06/2020 21:06, David Miller wrote:
>> From: patrickeigensatz@...il.com
>> Date: Mon,  1 Jun 2020 13:12:01 +0200
>>
>>> From: Patrick Eigensatz <patrickeigensatz@...il.com>
>>>
>>> After allocating the spare nexthop group it should be tested for kzalloc()
>>> returning NULL, instead the already used nexthop group (which cannot be
>>> NULL at this point) had been tested so far.
>>>
>>> Additionally, if kzalloc() fails, return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) instead of NULL.
>>>
>>> Coverity-id: 1463885
>>> Reported-by: Coverity <scan-admin@...erity.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Eigensatz <patrickeigensatz@...il.com>
>>
>> Applied, thank you.
>>
> 
> Hi Dave,
> I see this patch in -net-next but it should've been in -net as I wrote in my
> review[1]. This patch should go along with the recent nexthop set that fixes
> a few bugs, since it could result in a null ptr deref if the spare group cannot
> be allocated.

Obviously I forgot to mention in my review that it should go to -stable with the
nexthop fix set.

> How would you like to proceed? Should it be submitted for -net as well?
> 
> Thanks,
>  Nik
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/1/391
>