From: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ovl: Check for NULL OVL_E() results
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 16:00:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202504211558.182D13B3@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxg8rNPUTk8dqz2HmvT9Avy_6WMW4xOMPtG0b8tSUWAKcQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 07:20:52PM +0100, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 5:46 AM Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > GCC notices that it is possible for OVL_E() to return NULL (which
> > implies that d_inode(dentry) may be NULL).
>
> I cannot follow this logic.
>
> Yes, OVL_E() can be NULL, but
> it does not imply that inode is NULL, so if you think that
> code should to be fortified, what's wrong with:
>
> struct dentry *ovl_dentry_upper(struct dentry *dentry)
> {
> - return ovl_upperdentry_dereference(OVL_I(d_inode(dentry)));
> + struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
> +
> + return inode ? ovl_upperdentry_dereference(OVL_I(inode)) : NULL;
> }
>
> TBH, I don't know where the line should be drawn for fortifying against
> future bugs, but if the goal of this patch is to silene a compiler warning
> then please specify this in the commit message, because I don't think
> there is any evidence of an actual bug, is there?
Sorry for the delay on this! I'm finally coming back around to these
fixes. :)
Yes, your suggestion works very nicely! That entirely solves the GCC
warning.
And correct, this was to deal with an over-eager compiler warning --
there was no bug here that I'm aware of.
I will send an updated patch with your suggestion.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-21 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-17 4:46 [PATCH] ovl: Check for NULL OVL_E() results Kees Cook
2024-11-18 18:20 ` Amir Goldstein
2025-04-21 23:00 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2024-11-25 12:53 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202504211558.182D13B3@keescook \
--to=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox