lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] livepatch: Handle failing allocation of shadow variables in the selftest
On Mon 2019-01-21 13:14:38, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > Do not dereference pointers to the shadow variables when either
> > klp_shadow_alloc() or klp_shadow_get() fail.
>
> I may misunderstand the patch, so bear with me, please. Is this because of
> a possible null pointer dereference? If yes, shouldn't this say rather
> "when both klp_shadow_alloc() and klp_shadow_get() fail"?

Well, klp_shadow_get() could fail also from other reasons if there is
a bug in the implementation.

> > There is no need to check the other locations explicitly. The test
> > would fail if any allocation fails. And the existing messages, printed
> > during the test, provide enough information to debug eventual problems.

Heh, this is actually the reason why I did not add the check
for shadow_alloc(). Any error would be detected later
with klp_shadow_get() calls that should get tested anyway.

Hmm, when I think about it. A good practice is to handle
klp_shadow_allow() or klp_shadow_get() failures immediately.
After all, it is the sample code that people might follow.


> > Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
> > ---
> > lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c b/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> > index 02f892f941dc..55e6820430dc 100644
> > --- a/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> > +++ b/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> > @@ -162,15 +162,15 @@ static int test_klp_shadow_vars_init(void)
> > * to expected data.
> > */
> > ret = shadow_get(obj, id);
> > - if (ret == sv1 && *sv1 == &var1)
> > + if (ret && ret == sv1 && *sv1 == &var1)
> > pr_info(" got expected PTR%d -> PTR%d result\n",
> > ptr_id(sv1), ptr_id(*sv1));
> > ret = shadow_get(obj + 1, id);
> > - if (ret == sv2 && *sv2 == &var2)
> > + if (ret && ret == sv2 && *sv2 == &var2)
> > pr_info(" got expected PTR%d -> PTR%d result\n",
> > ptr_id(sv2), ptr_id(*sv2));
> > ret = shadow_get(obj, id + 1);
> > - if (ret == sv3 && *sv3 == &var3)
> > + if (ret && ret == sv3 && *sv3 == &var3)
> > pr_info(" got expected PTR%d -> PTR%d result\n",
> > ptr_id(sv3), ptr_id(*sv3));
>
> There is one more similar site calling shadow_get(obj, id + 1) which is
> fixed.

Heh, I think that I did not add the check there on purpose.
If we are here, shadow_get(obj, id + 1) must have already succeeded
above.

But it is a bad practice. We should always check the output.
I'll do so in v2.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-30 09:46    [W:0.075 / U:58.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site