netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3] ice: Adjust over allocation of memory in ice_sched_add_root_node() and ice_sched_add

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: <56160e13-662d-4f7e-86d3-1a88716f01d9@molgen.mpg.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:50:59 +0200
From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
 Aleksandr Mishin <amishin@...rgos.ru>
Cc: lvc-project@...uxtesting.org, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v3] ice: Adjust over allocation
 of memory in ice_sched_add_root_node() and ice_sched_add_node()

Dear Przemek,

Thank you for your quick reply.

Am 09.07.24 um 11:11 schrieb Przemek Kitszel:
> On 7/9/24 10:54, Paul Menzel wrote:
>> [Cc: -anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com (Address rejected)]
>>
>> Am 09.07.24 um 10:49 schrieb Paul Menzel:

>>> Am 08.07.24 um 20:27 schrieb Aleksandr Mishin:
>>>> In ice_sched_add_root_node() and ice_sched_add_node() there are calls to
>>>> devm_kcalloc() in order to allocate memory for array of pointers to
>>>> 'ice_sched_node' structure. But incorrect types are used as sizeof()
>>>> arguments in these calls (structures instead of pointers) which leads to
>>>> over allocation of memory.
>>>
>>> If you have the explicit size at hand, it’d be great if you added 
>>> those to the commit message.
>>>
>>>> Adjust over allocation of memory by correcting types in devm_kcalloc()
>>>> sizeof() arguments.
>>>>
>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>>>
>>> Maybe mention, that Coverity found that too, and the warning was 
>>> disabled, and use that commit in Fixes: tag? That’d be commit 
>>> b36c598c999c (ice: Updates to Tx scheduler code), different from the 
>>> one you used.
> 
> this version does not have any SHA mentioned :)

Sorry, I don’t understand your answer. What SHA do you mean?

>>> `Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst` says:
>>>
>>>> A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous
>>>> commit. It is used to make it easy to determine where a bug
>>>> originated, which can help review a bug fix. This tag also assists
>>>> the stable kernel team in determining which stable kernel versions
>>>> should receive your fix. This is the preferred method for indicating
>>>> a bug fixed by the patch.
> 
> so, this is not a "fix" per definition of a fix: "your patch changes
> observable misbehavior"
> If the over-allocation would be counted in megabytes, then it will
> be a different case.

The quoted text just talks about “an issue”. What definition do you 
refer to?

Kind regards,

Paul