Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:51:23 +0100 (CET) | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2/2] fix unchecked returns from kmalloc() (in mm/slab.c) |
| |
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07 2004, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 07 2004, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > > > > > Problem reported by Katrina Tsipenyuk and the Fortify Software engineering > > > > team in thread with subject "PROBLEM: unchecked returns from kmalloc() in > > > > linux-2.6.10-rc2". > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I'm not very familliar with the code in question, and since > > > > I didn't find a really good way to deal with a failing kmalloc() here I > > > > settled for second best which is to add a BUG_ON() in case kmalloc fails. > > > > This will at least crash in a sane way at the point the problem occoures > > > > rather than getting strange problems at a (possibly) later time. If > > > > someone who's familliar with how this code works has a better solution > > > > then please step forward :) but in the mean time I think this is at least > > > > a slight improvement over the current situation. > > > > > > > > Patch has been compile tested and boot tested and didn't blow up > > > > instantly, but please review before applying. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> > > > > > > > > diff -up linux-2.6.10-rc3-bk2-orig/mm/slab.c linux-2.6.10-rc3-bk2/mm/slab.c > > > > --- linux-2.6.10-rc3-bk2-orig/mm/slab.c 2004-12-06 22:24:56.000000000 +0100 > > > > +++ linux-2.6.10-rc3-bk2/mm/slab.c 2004-12-07 21:27:20.000000000 +0100 > > > > @@ -804,6 +804,7 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void) > > > > void * ptr; > > > > > > > > ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct arraycache_init), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + BUG_ON(ptr == NULL); /* FIXME: Can a failed kmalloc be handled better? */ > > > > local_irq_disable(); > > > > BUG_ON(ac_data(&cache_cache) != &initarray_cache.cache); > > > > memcpy(ptr, ac_data(&cache_cache), sizeof(struct arraycache_init)); > > > > > > This is pointless, as a NULL deref on memcpy will give you the exact > > > same info. > > > > > Hmm, now why didn't I think of that. Thanks Jens. > > I guess I'm not up to the task of fixing this one. I'll try looking > > harder, but I don't think I can do better in this case. > > See my next mail, I'm not so sure there's anything worth fixing. If > there was no fear of it being misused, perhaps GFP_PANIC would be a > proper way to flag that this really should not fail. > Ok, I'll just leave this alone now. Implementing GFP_PANIC is waaaay out of my league at the moment. Could be fun to try just for the hell of it, but I have a feeling it's beyond me... maybe I'll take a stab at it during the weekend if for no other reason than to learn a bit about how memory allocation actually works in the kernel (a mostly dark spot atm) :) ...
-- Jesper Juhl
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |