On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 02:09:45PM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 01:27:47PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:55:29AM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:45:36AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marciej,
> >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > > In igc_clean_rx_irq() the result of a call to igc_xdp_run_prog() is assigned
> > > > to the skb local variable. This may be an ERR_PTR.
> > > >
> > > > A little later the following is executed, which seems to be a
> > > > possible dereference of an ERR_PTR.
> > > >
> > > > total_bytes += skb->len;
> > > >
> > > > Avoid this problem by continuing the loop in which all of the
> > > > above occurs once the handling of the NULL case completes.
> > > >
> > > > This proposed fix is speculative - I do not have deep knowledge of this
> > > > driver. And I am concerned about the effect of skipping the following
> > > > logic:
> > > >
> > > > igc_put_rx_buffer(rx_ring, rx_buffer, rx_buffer_pgcnt);
> > > > cleaned_count++;
> > >
> > > this will break - you have to recycle the buffer to have it going.
> >
> > Thanks. As I said I wasn't sure about the fix: it was a strawman.
> >
> > > > Flagged by Smatch as:
> > > >
> > > > .../igc_main.c:2467 igc_xdp_run_prog() warn: passing zero to 'ERR_PTR'
> > >
> > > how about PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() ? this would silence smatch and is not an
> > > intrusive change. another way is to get rid of ERR_PTR() around skb/xdp
> > > run result but i think the former would be just fine.
> >
> > Sorry, there were two warnings. And I accidently trimmed the one
> > that is more relevant instead of the one that is less relevant.
> > I do agree the one above does not appear to be a bug.
> >
> > But I am concerned abut this one:
> >
> > .../igc_main.c:2618 igc_clean_rx_irq() error: 'skb' dereferencing possible ERR_PTR()
> >
> > If skb is an error pointer, e.g. ERR_PTR(-IGC_XDP_PASS), and
> > it is dereferenced, that would be a problem, right?
>
> IGC_XDP_PASS is 0. -0 is still 0 right?
Yes, I missed that point.
Though I could have chosen a different value which is not zero.
> this means skb is NULL and igc_{build,construct}_skb() will init it. For
> ERR_PTR, igc_cleanup_headers() does IS_ERR() against it and continues. So
> you will get to line 2618 only for valid skb, it just happens that logic
> is written in a way that skb is supposed to carry XDP return code. We
> removed this in ice for example but i40e works like that for many years
> without issues, AFAICT...
Thanks. I now see that the key point I was missing is the IS_ERR()
check in igc_cleanup_headers().
I agree this is not a bug.
