lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 068/190] Revert "fore200e: Fix incorrect checks of NULL pointer dereference"
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 02:59:03PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This reverts commit bbd20c939c8aa3f27fa30e86691af250bf92973a.
>
> 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.
>
> Cc: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@umn.edu>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
> drivers/atm/fore200e.c | 25 +++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/atm/fore200e.c b/drivers/atm/fore200e.c
> index 495fd0a1f040..e83286e3216e 100644
> --- a/drivers/atm/fore200e.c
> +++ b/drivers/atm/fore200e.c
> @@ -1412,14 +1412,12 @@ fore200e_open(struct atm_vcc *vcc)
> static void
> fore200e_close(struct atm_vcc* vcc)
> {
> + struct fore200e* fore200e = FORE200E_DEV(vcc->dev);
> struct fore200e_vcc* fore200e_vcc;
> - struct fore200e* fore200e;
> struct fore200e_vc_map* vc_map;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> ASSERT(vcc);
> - fore200e = FORE200E_DEV(vcc->dev);
> -
> ASSERT((vcc->vpi >= 0) && (vcc->vpi < 1<<FORE200E_VPI_BITS));
> ASSERT((vcc->vci >= 0) && (vcc->vci < 1<<FORE200E_VCI_BITS));
>
> @@ -1464,10 +1462,10 @@ fore200e_close(struct atm_vcc* vcc)
> static int
> fore200e_send(struct atm_vcc *vcc, struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> - struct fore200e* fore200e;
> - struct fore200e_vcc* fore200e_vcc;
> + struct fore200e* fore200e = FORE200E_DEV(vcc->dev);
> + struct fore200e_vcc* fore200e_vcc = FORE200E_VCC(vcc);
> struct fore200e_vc_map* vc_map;
> - struct host_txq* txq;
> + struct host_txq* txq = &fore200e->host_txq;
> struct host_txq_entry* entry;
> struct tpd* tpd;
> struct tpd_haddr tpd_haddr;
> @@ -1480,18 +1478,9 @@ fore200e_send(struct atm_vcc *vcc, struct sk_buff *skb)
> unsigned char* data;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - if (!vcc)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - fore200e = FORE200E_DEV(vcc->dev);
> - fore200e_vcc = FORE200E_VCC(vcc);
> -
> - if (!fore200e)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - txq = &fore200e->host_txq;
> - if (!fore200e_vcc)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + ASSERT(vcc);
> + ASSERT(fore200e);
> + ASSERT(fore200e_vcc);
>
> if (!test_bit(ATM_VF_READY, &vcc->flags)) {
> DPRINTK(1, "VC %d.%d.%d not ready for tx\n", vcc->itf, vcc->vpi, vcc->vpi);
> --
> 2.31.1
>

Wow, the names in this code bring back memories...

Anyway, the original looks correct, but could have been written a lot
better, it's quite "twisty" for something that should have been very
simple to make "obvious".

I'll drop this revert.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-27 19:56    [W:1.641 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site