From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/ppgtt: Prevent NULL deref in reset ioctl Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:11:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20131220141044.GA23400@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1387495360-15114-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com> <20131220065556.GA31581@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-f176.google.com (mail-ea0-f176.google.com [209.85.215.176]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF840FA33E for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:10:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ea0-f176.google.com with SMTP id h14so1073871eaj.35 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:10:25 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131220065556.GA31581@bwidawsk.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: Ben Widawsky Cc: Intel GFX , Ben Widawsky List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:55:56PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 07:05:10AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Ben Widawsky > > wrote: > > > ctx = i915_gem_context_get(file->driver_priv, args->ctx_id); > > > - if (IS_ERR(ctx)) { > > > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ctx)) { > > > > We now have half the callers check for IS_ERR and the others not. > > Afaics i915_gem_context_get can only return NULL or a real context > > though. Also from a quite read the expected error for a lookup failure > > is ENOENT (and there seems to be a testcase for this). > > -Daniel > > > To your first point: > I think checking null is always the right thing currently, but for > future proofing, IS_ERR_OR_NULL is really the right thing. After his > patch, I believe only i915_gem_context_destroy_ioctl is still incorrect. Using IS_ERR_OR_NULL on a return value which can never contain an encoded errno value is imo confusing, more so when it's inconsitently applied. > To the second: > This is only based on my memory, so feel free to change whatever you > need. When I retuned -ENXIO, the test failed. > > It should be: > return ctx ? PTR_ERR(ctx) : -ENOENT; On a cursory read that's been the semantics before your patch. And there seems to be a testcase in gem_reset_stat for this, have you run all subtests? > I had > return ctx ? PTR_ERR(ctx) : -ENXIO; > which made the subtest fail. However, as we've noted, this itself was > not correct. Try the return above. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch