On 15/05/2021 21:36, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 09:22:12PM +0100, Khaled ROMDHANI wrote:
>> From the coverity scan analysis, the return value from
>> insn_decode_kernel is not checked. It is a macro constructed
>> from the insn_decode function which may fail and return
>> negative integer. Fix this by explicitly checking the
>> return value.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unchecked return value")
>> Signed-off-by: Khaled ROMDHANI <khaledromdhani216@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/jump_label.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/jump_label.c b/arch/x86/kernel/jump_label.c
>> index a762dc1c615e..bf0ea003b6e7 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/jump_label.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/jump_label.c
>> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ int arch_jump_entry_size(struct jump_entry *entry)
>> {
>> struct insn insn = {};
>>
>> - insn_decode_kernel(&insn, (void *)jump_entry_code(entry));
>> + WARN_ON(insn_decode_kernel(&insn, (void *)jump_entry_code(entry)));
>
> I don't think coverity is smart enough to notice...
>
>> BUG_ON(insn.length != 2 && insn.length != 5);
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ... this line.
>
>
Indeed. One needs to be careful with false positives with Coverity.
Colin
