Hi,
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Do not dereference pointers to the shadow variables when either
> klp_shadow_alloc() or klp_shadow_get() fail.
I may misunderstand the patch, so bear with me, please. Is this because of
a possible null pointer dereference? If yes, shouldn't this say rather
"when both klp_shadow_alloc() and klp_shadow_get() fail"?
> There is no need to check the other locations explicitly. The test
> would fail if any allocation fails. And the existing messages, printed
> during the test, provide enough information to debug eventual problems.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c b/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> index 02f892f941dc..55e6820430dc 100644
> --- a/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> +++ b/lib/livepatch/test_klp_shadow_vars.c
> @@ -162,15 +162,15 @@ static int test_klp_shadow_vars_init(void)
> * to expected data.
> */
> ret = shadow_get(obj, id);
> - if (ret == sv1 && *sv1 == &var1)
> + if (ret && ret == sv1 && *sv1 == &var1)
> pr_info(" got expected PTR%d -> PTR%d result\n",
> ptr_id(sv1), ptr_id(*sv1));
> ret = shadow_get(obj + 1, id);
> - if (ret == sv2 && *sv2 == &var2)
> + if (ret && ret == sv2 && *sv2 == &var2)
> pr_info(" got expected PTR%d -> PTR%d result\n",
> ptr_id(sv2), ptr_id(*sv2));
> ret = shadow_get(obj, id + 1);
> - if (ret == sv3 && *sv3 == &var3)
> + if (ret && ret == sv3 && *sv3 == &var3)
> pr_info(" got expected PTR%d -> PTR%d result\n",
> ptr_id(sv3), ptr_id(*sv3));
There is one more similar site calling shadow_get(obj, id + 1) which is
fixed.
Thanks,
Miroslav
