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]
Date:   Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:51:22 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: pull-request: bpf 2022-03-29

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:41 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:49:24 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > Hi David, hi Jakub,
> >
> > The following pull-request contains BPF updates for your *net* tree.
> >
> > We've added 16 non-merge commits during the last 1 day(s) which contain
> > a total of 24 files changed, 354 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-).
> >
> > The main changes are:
> >
> > 1) x86 specific bits of fprobe/rethook, from Masami and Peter.
> >
> > 2) ice/xsk fixes, from Maciej and Magnus.
> >
> > 3) Various small fixes, from Andrii, Yonghong, Geliang and others.
>
> There are some new sparse warnings here that look semi-legit.
> As in harmless but not erroneous.

Both are new warnings and not due to these patches, right?

> kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces):
> kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9:    void ( [noderef] __rcu * )( ... )
> kernel/trace/rethook.c:68:9:    void ( * )( ... )
>
> 66 void rethook_free(struct rethook *rh)
> 67 {
> 68         rcu_assign_pointer(rh->handler, NULL);
> 69
> 70         call_rcu(&rh->rcu, rethook_free_rcu);
> 71 }
>
> Looks like this should be a WRITE_ONCE() ?

Masami, please take a look.

> And the __user annotations in bpf_trace.c are still not right,
> first arg of kprobe_multi_resolve_syms() should __user:
>
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34:    expected void const [noderef] __user *from
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2370:34:    got void const *usyms
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different address spaces)
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51:    expected char const [noderef] __user *src
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2376:51:    got char const *
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49:    expected void const *usyms
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:2443:49:    got void [noderef] __user *[assigned] usyms

This one is known. Still waiting for the fix from Jiri.

> How do you wanna proceed?

If they both are old I would proceed.
I don't consider sparse warnings as a blocker in general.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists