The stack_pools[] array has DEPOT_MAX_POOLS. The "pools_num" tracks the
number of pools which are initialized. See depot_init_pool() for more
details.
If pool_index == pools_num_cached, this will read one element beyond what
we want. If not all the pools are initialized, then the pool will be
NULL, triggering a WARN(), and if they are all initialized it will read
one element beyond the end of the array.
Fixes: b29d31885814 ("lib/stackdepot: store free stack records in a freelist")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
From static analysis. What seems to have happened is that originally
we stored the highest index instead of the number of elements and when
we changed the > to >= comparison was overlooked.
lib/stackdepot.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/stackdepot.c b/lib/stackdepot.c
index 8c795bb20afb..af6cc19a2003 100644
--- a/lib/stackdepot.c
+++ b/lib/stackdepot.c
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static struct stack_record *depot_fetch_stack(depot_stack_handle_t handle)
lockdep_assert_not_held(&pool_lock);
- if (pool_index > pools_num_cached) {
+ if (pool_index >= pools_num_cached) {
WARN(1, "pool index %d out of bounds (%d) for stack id %08x\n",
pool_index, pools_num_cached, handle);
return NULL;
--
2.43.0
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 3:20 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaroorg> wrote:
>
> The stack_pools[] array has DEPOT_MAX_POOLS. The "pools_num" tracks the
> number of pools which are initialized. See depot_init_pool() for more
> details.
>
> If pool_index == pools_num_cached, this will read one element beyond what
> we want. If not all the pools are initialized, then the pool will be
> NULL, triggering a WARN(), and if they are all initialized it will read
> one element beyond the end of the array.
>
> Fixes: b29d31885814 ("lib/stackdepot: store free stack records in a freelist")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> ---
> From static analysis. What seems to have happened is that originally
> we stored the highest index instead of the number of elements and when
> we changed the > to >= comparison was overlooked.
>
> lib/stackdepot.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/stackdepot.c b/lib/stackdepot.c
> index 8c795bb20afb..af6cc19a2003 100644
> --- a/lib/stackdepot.c
> +++ b/lib/stackdepot.c
> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static struct stack_record *depot_fetch_stack(depot_stack_handle_t handle)
>
> lockdep_assert_not_held(&pool_lock);
>
> - if (pool_index > pools_num_cached) {
> + if (pool_index >= pools_num_cached) {
> WARN(1, "pool index %d out of bounds (%d) for stack id %08x\n",
> pool_index, pools_num_cached, handle);
> return NULL;
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Hi Dan,
This patch needs to be rebased onto "lib/stackdepot: Fix first entry
having a 0-handle", which is now in mm-stable.
Thank you!
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:10:31PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 3:20 PM Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The stack_pools[] array has DEPOT_MAX_POOLS. The "pools_num" tracks the
> > number of pools which are initialized. See depot_init_pool() for more
> > details.
> >
> > If pool_index == pools_num_cached, this will read one element beyond what
> > we want. If not all the pools are initialized, then the pool will be
> > NULL, triggering a WARN(), and if they are all initialized it will read
> > one element beyond the end of the array.
> >
> > Fixes: b29d31885814 ("lib/stackdepot: store free stack records in a freelist")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > From static analysis. What seems to have happened is that originally
> > we stored the highest index instead of the number of elements and when
> > we changed the > to >= comparison was overlooked.
> >
> > lib/stackdepot.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/stackdepot.c b/lib/stackdepot.c
> > index 8c795bb20afb..af6cc19a2003 100644
> > --- a/lib/stackdepot.c
> > +++ b/lib/stackdepot.c
> > @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static struct stack_record *depot_fetch_stack(depot_stack_handle_t handle)
> >
> > lockdep_assert_not_held(&pool_lock);
> >
> > - if (pool_index > pools_num_cached) {
> > + if (pool_index >= pools_num_cached) {
> > WARN(1, "pool index %d out of bounds (%d) for stack id %08x\n",
> > pool_index, pools_num_cached, handle);
> > return NULL;
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> This patch needs to be rebased onto "lib/stackdepot: Fix first entry
> having a 0-handle", which is now in mm-stable.
I wrote it on top of that patch... Backports will need to be adjusted
to handle it, I guess. The "lib/stackdepot: fix first entry having a
0-handle" commit has this note:
This bug has been lurking since the very beginning of stackdepot, but no
one really cared as it seems. Because of that I am not adding a Fixes
tag.
I don't really know the code very well so I can't respond to that.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 8:22 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaroorg> wrote:
>
> I wrote it on top of that patch...
Ah, right, my bad.
> Backports will need to be adjusted
> to handle it, I guess. The "lib/stackdepot: fix first entry having a
> 0-handle" commit has this note:
>
> This bug has been lurking since the very beginning of stackdepot, but no
> one really cared as it seems. Because of that I am not adding a Fixes
> tag.
>
> I don't really know the code very well so I can't respond to that.
Your patch looks good to me, thank you!
Reviewed-by: Andrey Konovalov <[email protected]>