From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B9ED250E6 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:14:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FBxMYZrT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A42B3C433C8; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 14:14:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1698243250; bh=u8Hb+8CBmmdXR1Qra0P9J+M1NhZnHM1zSoQDSKIkf+E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FBxMYZrTnOu+I/bzIz/S2X3Xe36VpCOVt3hg8nsL2D4GTDB63LtkrugeFQpz7DZl+ AI1kUjP3apyN8JBjjK8IVo11Gv5VRBSxkn5X/3QjHF2eeJVIKwDv7XjiW++HfK4SrI +Tc8MU3kIPwG/hT8w1YXEnztFfONJJVG48TXOATncsZ/scGB49/xYzFc6tWeLUqlGQ NbOfymHXus9jGMODCz7oCaF519wB56yh6hnqSM4e8SpWs1yX0vOs7SUaB7YZ3vPBn/ fZjlI9pIWL5nmUkeZ6CdUXySUaS32LbmkByLGjoEKFhzEbjMDIcgeQQ7GTtCMQTAez HncWaUKF/CsPw== Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 07:14:08 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Sabrina Dubroca Cc: Hangyu Hua , borisp@nvidia.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: tls: Fix possible NULL-pointer dereference in tls_decrypt_device() and tls_decrypt_sw() Message-ID: <20231025071408.3b33f733@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20231023080611.19244-1-hbh25y@gmail.com> <120e6c2c-6122-41db-8c46-7753e9659c70@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:27:05 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > My bad. I only checked &msg->msg_iter's address in tls_decrypt_sw and found > > it was wrong. Do I need to make a new patch to fix the harmless bogus > > pointer? > > I don't think that's necessary, but maybe it would avoid people trying > to "fix" this code in the future. Jakub, WDYT? No strong feelings, but personally I find checks for conditions which cannot happen decrease the readability. Maybe a comment is better?