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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 08:38:49 +0100 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn> Cc: stephen@...workplumber.org, kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org, decui@...rosoft.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] hv_netvsc: Add check for kvmalloc_array On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 03:33:49PM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:43:48PM +0800, Greg KH wrote: > >> As the potential failure of the kvmalloc_array(), > >> it should be better to check and restore the 'data' > >> if fails in order to avoid the dereference of the > >> NULL pointer. > >> > >> Fixes: 6ae746711263 ("hv_netvsc: Add per-cpu ethtool stats for netvsc") > >> Signed-off-by: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn> > >> --- > >> drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c | 6 ++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c > >> index 3646469433b1..018c4a5f6f44 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc_drv.c > >> @@ -1587,6 +1587,12 @@ static void netvsc_get_ethtool_stats(struct net_device *dev, > >> pcpu_sum = kvmalloc_array(num_possible_cpus(), > >> sizeof(struct netvsc_ethtool_pcpu_stats), > >> GFP_KERNEL); > >> + if (!pcpu_sum) { > >> + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) > >> + data[j] = 0; > >> + return; > >> + } > > > >How did you test this to verify it is correct? > > Thanks, I have tested the patch by kernel_patch_verify, What is that? > and all the tests are passed. What tests exactly? How did you fail this allocation? thanks, greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists