Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1] selftests/bpf: fix invalid pointer check in get_xlated_program()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/10/23 12:16 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
Dan Carpenter reported invalid check for calloc() result in
test_verifier.c:get_xlated_program():

   ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c:1365 get_xlated_program()
   warn: variable dereferenced before check 'buf' (see line 1364)

   ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
     1363		*cnt = xlated_prog_len / buf_element_size;
     1364		*buf = calloc(*cnt, buf_element_size);
     1365		if (!buf) {

   This should be if (!*buf) {

     1366			perror("can't allocate xlated program buffer");
     1367			return -ENOMEM;

This commit refactors the get_xlated_program() to avoid using double
pointer type.

Isn't the small reported fix above sufficient? (Either is fine with me though.)

Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/ZH7u0hEGVB4MjGZq@moroto/
Fixes: 933ff53191eb ("selftests/bpf: specify expected instructions in test_verifier tests")
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 26 ++++++++++++---------
  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
index 71704a38cac3..c6bc9e26d333 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
@@ -1341,45 +1341,48 @@ static bool cmp_str_seq(const char *log, const char *exp)
  	return true;
  }
-static int get_xlated_program(int fd_prog, struct bpf_insn **buf, int *cnt)
+static struct bpf_insn *get_xlated_program(int fd_prog, int *cnt)
  {
  	struct bpf_prog_info info = {};
  	__u32 info_len = sizeof(info);
+	__u32 buf_element_size;
  	__u32 xlated_prog_len;
-	__u32 buf_element_size = sizeof(struct bpf_insn);
+	struct bpf_insn *buf;
+
+	buf_element_size = sizeof(struct bpf_insn);

Just small nit: the `__u32 buf_element_size = sizeof(struct bpf_insn);` could have
stayed as is.

  	if (bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(fd_prog, &info, &info_len)) {
  		perror("bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd failed");
-		return -1;
+		return NULL;
  	}
xlated_prog_len = info.xlated_prog_len;
  	if (xlated_prog_len % buf_element_size) {
  		printf("Program length %d is not multiple of %d\n",
  		       xlated_prog_len, buf_element_size);
-		return -1;
+		return NULL;
  	}
*cnt = xlated_prog_len / buf_element_size;
-	*buf = calloc(*cnt, buf_element_size);
+	buf = calloc(*cnt, buf_element_size);
  	if (!buf) {
  		perror("can't allocate xlated program buffer");
-		return -ENOMEM;
+		return NULL;
  	}
bzero(&info, sizeof(info));
  	info.xlated_prog_len = xlated_prog_len;
-	info.xlated_prog_insns = (__u64)(unsigned long)*buf;
+	info.xlated_prog_insns = (__u64)(unsigned long)buf;
  	if (bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd(fd_prog, &info, &info_len)) {
  		perror("second bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd failed");
  		goto out_free_buf;
  	}
- return 0;
+	return buf;
out_free_buf:
-	free(*buf);
-	return -1;
+	free(buf);
+	return NULL;
  }
static bool is_null_insn(struct bpf_insn *insn)
@@ -1512,7 +1515,8 @@ static bool check_xlated_program(struct bpf_test *test, int fd_prog)
  	if (!check_expected && !check_unexpected)
  		goto out;
- if (get_xlated_program(fd_prog, &buf, &cnt)) {
+	buf = get_xlated_program(fd_prog, &cnt);
+	if (!buf) {
  		printf("FAIL: can't get xlated program\n");
  		result = false;
  		goto out;






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux