Re: [spice-server PATCH 2/8] image_encoders: check shared_dict before accessing it

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

 



On 10/17/2016 01:29 PM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:

In both image_encoders_restore_glz_dictionary() and
image_encoders_get_glz_dictionary() shared-dict may
be NULL if size is too large, and the server gets
size from the network.

Both functions end up calling glz_enc_dictionary_create()
that calls glz_dictionary_window_create() where size is
checked.

Found by coverity.

Signed-off-by: Uri Lublin <uril@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 server/image-encoders.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/server/image-encoders.c b/server/image-encoders.c
index 39aca6c..9dfabd6 100644
--- a/server/image-encoders.c
+++ b/server/image-encoders.c
@@ -746,12 +746,13 @@ gboolean
image_encoders_get_glz_dictionary(ImageEncoders *enc,
         shared_dict->refs++;
     } else {
         shared_dict = create_glz_dictionary(enc, client, id, window_size);
+        spice_return_val_if_fail(shared_dict != NULL, FALSE);
         glz_dictionary_list = g_list_prepend(glz_dictionary_list,
         shared_dict);
     }

     pthread_mutex_unlock(&glz_dictionary_list_lock);
     enc->glz_dict = shared_dict;
-    return shared_dict != NULL;
+    return TRUE;
 }

 static GlzSharedDictionary *restore_glz_dictionary(ImageEncoders *enc,
@@ -782,12 +783,13 @@ gboolean
image_encoders_restore_glz_dictionary(ImageEncoders *enc,
         shared_dict->refs++;
     } else {
         shared_dict = restore_glz_dictionary(enc, client, id, restore_data);
+        spice_return_val_if_fail(shared_dict != NULL, FALSE);
         glz_dictionary_list = g_list_prepend(glz_dictionary_list,
         shared_dict);
     }

     pthread_mutex_unlock(&glz_dictionary_list_lock);
     enc->glz_dict = shared_dict;
-    return shared_dict != NULL;
+    return TRUE;
 }

 gboolean image_encoders_glz_create(ImageEncoders *enc, uint8_t id)

Note that you are creating dead locks.

Yes, your are right.
I'll send a replacement patch that fixes that.

Beside that is not clear what the change could cause to the
upper layer.

Upper layer should already handle a case where these functions
return NULL.

I think the actual logic is supposing that dictionary creation (like
memory allocation) is not failing.

Since it depends on a value that comes from the client that
assumption should not be made. Alternatively we
can specifically check the number early

Thanks,
    Uri.

_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]