Re: [PATCH] RDMA/nldev: Fix multiple potential NULL pointer dereferences

Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-02-09T15:56:02Z

Quoting Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>:

> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 07:36:49AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Hi Leon,
>>
>> Quoting Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>:
>>
>> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:37:02AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> > > In case the message header and payload cannot be stored, function
>> > > nlmsg_put returns null.
>> > >
>> > > Fix this by adding multiple sanity checks and avoid a potential
>> > > null dereference on _nlh_ when calling nlmsg_end.
>> > >
>> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1454215 ("Dereference null return value")
>> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1454223 ("Dereference null return value")
>> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1454224 ("Dereference null return value")
>> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1464669 ("Dereference null return value")
>> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1464670 ("Dereference null return value")
>> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1464672 ("Dereference null return value")
>> > > Fixes: e5c9469efcb1 ("RDMA/netlink: Add nldev device doit
>> implementation")
>> > > Fixes: c3f66f7b0052 ("RDMA/netlink: Implement nldev port doit callback")
>> > > Fixes: 7d02f605f0dc ("RDMA/netlink: Add nldev port dumpit
>> implementation")
>> > > Fixes: b5fa635aab8f ("RDMA/nldev: Provide detailed QP information")
>> > > Fixes: bf3c5a93c523 ("RDMA/nldev: Provide global resource utilization")
>> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> > > ---
>> > > drivers/infiniband/core/nldev.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > >
>> >
>> > It will be much better to fix the tool instead of fixing ghost case.
>> > This scenario is impossible for all those flows.
>> > We can receive the skv/msg in two ways:
>> > * First by allocating new message with NLMSG_DEFAULT_SIZE, which has
>> > more room
>> > than nlmsg_total_size(payload), payload is 0.
>> > * Second by getting from netlink.c and it will be at least "struct
>> > nlmsghdr" too.
>> >
>> > Can you please add this info to the commit message?
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I was planing to send a new version of this patch. This time using
>> the unlikely macro for all the null checks on nlh.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> It is not datapath, so "unlikely" is not needed. Let's assume that
> smart enough
> compiler will optimize such flow anyway, because nlmsg_put returns NULL
> in unlikely scenario, so this check will be unlikely automatically too.
>

I'm curious about why the return value of nlmsg_put is null checked
118 out of 129 times (based on Coverity reports) in the last
linux-next tree.

So based on what you mention, do you think all those checks are
actually unnecessary and, maybe they should be removed?

Thanks
--
Gustavo