lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 053/190] Revert "ecryptfs: replace BUG_ON with error handling code"
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:13:29AM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2021-04-21 16:04:02, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:58:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 2c2a7552dd6465e8fde6bc9cccf8d66ed1c1eb72.
> > >
> > > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad
> > > faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known
> > > malicious" changes. The result of these submissions can be found in a
> > > paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
> > > entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> > > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
> > > of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> > >
> > > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
> > > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
> > > they actually are a valid fix. Until that work is complete, remove this
> > > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> > > codebase.
> >
> > FWIW, commit message on the original (
> > ecryptfs: replace BUG_ON with error handling code
> >
> > In crypt_scatterlist, if the crypt_stat argument is not set up
> > correctly, the kernel crashes. Instead, by returning an error code
> > upstream, the error is handled safely.
> >
> > The issue is detected via a static analysis tool written by us.
> >
> > Fixes: 237fead619984 (ecryptfs: fs/Makefile and fs/Kconfig)
> > Signed-off-by: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@umn.edu>
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <code@tyhicks.com>
> > )
> > really stinks. First, the analysis: condition being tested is
> > (!crypt_stat || !crypt_stat->tfm
> > || !(crypt_stat->flags & ECRYPTFS_STRUCT_INITIALIZED))
> > and their patch replaces BUG_ON() with return of -EINVAL. So the
> > only thing their tool had detected the presence of BUG_ON().
> > Was it grep, by any chance?
> >
> > IOW, the commit message is "we'd found BUG_ON(); let's replace it
> > with returning some error value and hope everything works. Whaddya
> > mean, how do we know? Our tool [git grep BUG_ON, that is] says
> > it's there and look, it *is* there, so if it's ever reached there'll
> > be trouble. What, assertion that returning an error will be handled
> > safely? 'Cuz we saiz so, that's why"
> >
> >
> > It *is* functionally harmless, AFAICS, but only because the condition
> > is really impossible. However,
> > * it refers to vague (s)tool they'd produced, nevermind that
> > all they really do is "find BUG_ON(), replace with returning an error".
> > * unlike BUG_ON(), the replacement does *NOT* document the
> > fact that condition should be impossible.
> > IMO either should be sufficient for rejecting the patch.
>
> I agree that it was not a malicious change. There are other places
> within the same function that return -EINVAL and the expectation is that
> errors from this function should be handled safely.
>
> That said, I can find no real-world reports of this BUG_ON() ever being
> a problem and I don't think that there's any actual need for this
> change. So, I'm alright with it being reverted considering the
> circumstances.
>
> Acked-by: Tyler Hicks <code@tyhicks.com>

Thanks for the review, I've update the commit log message and added your
ack here.

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-27 16:58    [W:0.236 / U:1.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site