Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH][V2] e1000: avoid null pointer dereference on invalid stat type
From: Alexander Duyck <hidden>
Date: 2017-09-22 14:47:08
Also in:
intel-wired-lan, kernel-janitors, lkml
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Colin King [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Colin Ian King <redacted> Currently if the stat type is invalid then data[i] is being set either by dereferencing a null pointer p, or it is reading from an incorrect previous location if we had a valid stat type previously. Fix this by nullify pointer p if a stat type is invalid and only setting data if p is not null. Detected by CoverityScan, CID#113385 ("Explicit null dereferenced") Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <redacted> --- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_ethtool.c | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_ethtool.c index ec8aa4562cc9..724c93a6ea92 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_ethtool.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000/e1000_ethtool.c@@ -1824,7 +1824,7 @@ static void e1000_get_ethtool_stats(struct net_device *netdev, { struct e1000_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev); int i; - char *p = NULL; + char *p; const struct e1000_stats *stat = e1000_gstrings_stats; e1000_update_stats(adapter);
I was honestly happier with the portion of the first patch that moved this into the loop.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -1837,16 +1837,18 @@ static void e1000_get_ethtool_stats(struct net_device *netdev, p = (char *)adapter + stat->stat_offset; break; default: + p = NULL; WARN_ONCE(1, "Invalid E1000 stat type: %u index %d\n", stat->type, i); break; } - if (stat->sizeof_stat == sizeof(u64)) - data[i] = *(u64 *)p; - else - data[i] = *(u32 *)p; - + if (p) { + if (stat->sizeof_stat == sizeof(u64)) + data[i] = *(u64 *)p; + else + data[i] = *(u32 *)p; + } stat++; }
Instead of doing all this why not just call out a "continue;" instead of a "break" if the type isn't recognized, and move the stat++ into the loop declaration and process it at the same time as i++? That would clean most of this up and we don't have to worry about any loop carried variables and the like.
/* BUG_ON(i != E1000_STATS_LEN); */ -- 2.14.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-wired-lan mailing list Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan