lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/7] netfilter: fix IS_ERR_VALUE usage
From
Date
On 02/17/2016 03:31 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> IS_ERR_VALUE should be used only with unsigned long type.
>> Otherwise it can work incorrectly. To achieve this function
>> xt_percpu_counter_alloc is modified to return unsigned long,
>> and its result is assigned to temporary variable to perform
>> error checking, before assigning to .pcnt field.
> Wrong fix, IMO. Just have an anon union of u64 pcnt and
> struct xt_counters __percpu *pcpu in there. And make this
>
>> +static inline unsigned long xt_percpu_counter_alloc(void)
>> {
>> if (nr_cpu_ids > 1) {
>> void __percpu *res = __alloc_percpu(sizeof(struct xt_counters),
>> sizeof(struct xt_counters));
>>
>> if (res == NULL)
>> - return (u64) -ENOMEM;
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> - return (u64) (__force unsigned long) res;
>> + return (__force unsigned long) res;
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
> take struct xt_counters * and return 0 or -ENOMEM. Storing the result of
> allocation in ->pcpu of passed structure.
>
> I mean, look at the callers -
>
>> - e->counters.pcnt = xt_percpu_counter_alloc();
>> - if (IS_ERR_VALUE(e->counters.pcnt))
>> + pcnt = xt_percpu_counter_alloc();
>> + if (IS_ERR_VALUE(pcnt))
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> + e->counters.pcnt = pcnt;
> should be
> if (xt_percpu_counter_alloc(&e->counters) < 0)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> and similar for the rest of callers. Moreover, if you look at the _users_
> of that fields, you'll see that a bunch of those actually want to use
> ->pcpu instead of doing all those casts.
>
> Really, that's the point - IS_ERR_VALUE is a big red flag saying "we need
> to figure out what's going on in that place", which does include reading
> through the code. Mechanical "solutions" like that only hide the problem.
>
>
I just tried to make the patch the least invasive :)

The problem with your proposition is that struct xt_counters is exposed
to userspace as well as the structs containing it:
struct arpt_entry,
struct ipt_entry,
struct ip6t_entry

Mixing __percpu pointer into these structures seems problematic.
Maybe it would be better to skip adding union and do ugly casting
in xt_percpu_counter_alloc(struct xt_counters *) and friends.

Regards
Andrzej

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-17 10:01    [W:0.123 / U:1.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site