[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccicheck: add a test for repeat copy_from_user

> 在 2017年1月11日,下午2:12,Julia Lawall <> 写道:
> I looked at the get_user part of the original script. It looks like most
> of the complexity is to deal with the possibility of the src location
> being expressed in two different ways between the two calls.

Yes, in addition to pointer alias and the “field-whole” double-fetch type
as we mentioned previously, we also need to take into consideration of
the explicit data type conversion of the src pointer, such as:
get_user(dst, src)

get_user(dst, (int*)src)

Also the embedded computation at the argument position, such as
get_user(dst, ++src) , get_user(dst, align(src)), or get_user(dst, src[i]),
which could cause false positives. Loops also cause false positives.

> Even if this
> happens in practice only for get_user, it would seem that it could happen
> for copy_from_user as well. So I think we could just throw both get_user
> and copy_from_user into the same rule?

> I'm also not sure to understand why there are cases for things like
> get_user(exp1, src->f1)
> ...
> get_user(exp2,src)
> Can this happen? The types seem wrong.
I think it is unreasonable. It doesn’t work in practice. It exists in my script
because I combined different situations with disjunction but forgot to remove
the infeasible ones. Please remove it. A practical one should be:
get_user(exp1, src->f1)

copy_from_user(exp2, src ,size)

> Likewise, I see the need to take into account a second argument of src++,
> but not the need to take into account a second argument of src+4. Either
> there is src+4 in both calls or the addresses involved are just different.

src++ or src+4 are used when handling long messages byte by byte or word
by word by means of a loop. I paid attention to these because they cause
false positives as src pointers have changed for the double fetches. I remember
both of these two situations when examining the source code but I cannot
guarantee the src+4 situation exists as I don’t have an example in hand now. I suggest
we focus on the src++ for now. If src+4 cause any false positives, we’ll add it, too.


> Perhaps I'm missing something, though.
> julia

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-11 14:44    [W:0.054 / U:1.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site