genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse() can return NULL
pointer:
if (!ops->maxattr)
return NULL;
But this condition doesn't cause an error in
genl_family_rcv_msg_doit
Signed-off-by: Pavel Skripkin <[email protected]>
---
net/netlink/genetlink.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/netlink/genetlink.c b/net/netlink/genetlink.c
index 2d6fdf40df66..c06d06ead181 100644
--- a/net/netlink/genetlink.c
+++ b/net/netlink/genetlink.c
@@ -719,6 +719,8 @@ static int genl_family_rcv_msg_doit(const struct genl_family *family,
GENL_DONT_VALIDATE_STRICT);
if (IS_ERR(attrbuf))
return PTR_ERR(attrbuf);
+ if (!attrbuf)
+ return -EINVAL;
info.snd_seq = nlh->nlmsg_seq;
info.snd_portid = NETLINK_CB(skb).portid;
--
2.30.2
On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 15:13 +0000, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse() can return NULL
> pointer:
>
> if (!ops->maxattr)
> return NULL;
>
> But this condition doesn't cause an error in
> genl_family_rcv_msg_doit
And I'm almost certain that in fact it shouldn't cause an error!
If the family doesn't set maxattr then it doesn't want to have generic
netlink doing the parsing, but still it should be possible to call the
ops. Look at fs/dlm/netlink.c for example, it doesn't even have
attributes. You're breaking it with this patch.
Also, the (NULL) pointer is not actually _used_ anywhere, so why would
it matter?
johannes
Hi!
On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 18:26 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-04-03 at 15:13 +0000, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> > genl_family_rcv_msg_attrs_parse() can return NULL
> > pointer:
> >
> > if (!ops->maxattr)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > But this condition doesn't cause an error in
> > genl_family_rcv_msg_doit
>
> And I'm almost certain that in fact it shouldn't cause an error!
>
> If the family doesn't set maxattr then it doesn't want to have
> generic
> netlink doing the parsing, but still it should be possible to call
> the
> ops. Look at fs/dlm/netlink.c for example, it doesn't even have
> attributes. You're breaking it with this patch.
>
> Also, the (NULL) pointer is not actually _used_ anywhere, so why
> would
> it matter?
>
Oh, I see now. I thought, it could cause a NULL ptr deference in some
cases, because some ->doit() functions accessing info.attrs directly.
Now I understand the point, sorry for my misunderstanding the
situation.
> johannes
>
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin