Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751883AbaLEV1Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 16:27:25 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:52987 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751030AbaLEV1Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 16:27:24 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:27:23 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Tristan Lelong Cc: oleg.drokin@intel.com, andreas.dilger@intel.com, askb23@gmail.com, john.hammond@intel.com, gdonald@gmail.com, anhlq2110@gmail.com, fabio.falzoi84@gmail.com, oort10@gmail.com, agimenez@sysvalve.es, rupran@einserver.de, surya.seetharaman9@gmail.com, Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr, joe@perches.com, a.terekhov@gmail.com, liang.zhen@intel.com, vthakkar1994@gmail.com, amk@cray.com, srikrishanmalik@gmail.com, rd@radekdostal.com, bergwolf@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, tapaswenipathak@gmail.com, email@christophjaeger.info, uja.ornl@gmail.com, brilliantov@inbox.ru, dmitry.eremin@intel.com, HPDD-discuss@ml01.01.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix sparse warning on LPROC_SEQ_FOPS macros Message-ID: <20141205212723.GA22536@kroah.com> References: <1417766627-5232-1-git-send-email-tristan@lelong.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1417766627-5232-1-git-send-email-tristan@lelong.xyz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Tristan Lelong wrote: > This patch fix a sparse warning in lustre sources > > warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > expected void [noderef] *to > got char * > > This is done by adding the missing __user attribute on userland pointers inside > the LPROC_SEQ_FOPS-like macros: > - LPROC_SEQ_FOPS > - LPROC_SEQ_FOPS_RW_TYPE > - LPROC_SEQ_FOPS_WR_ONLY > - LDLM_POOL_PROC_WRITER > > The patch also updates all the functions that are used by this macro: > - lprocfs_wr_* > - *_seq_write > > as well as some helpers used by the previously modified functions (otherwise > fixing the sparse warning add some new ones): > - lprocfs_write_frac_helper > - lprocfs_write_helper > - lprocfs_write_u64_helper > > The patch also fixes one __user pointer direct dereference by strncmp > in function fld_proc_hash_seq_write by adding the proper copy_from_user. > > Signed-off-by: Tristan Lelong > --- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fld/lproc_fld.c | 14 ++++-- > .../staging/lustre/lustre/include/lprocfs_status.h | 44 +++++++++-------- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_internal.h | 5 +- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_pool.c | 4 +- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_resource.c | 7 +-- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lproc_lov.c | 20 +++++--- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/lproc_mdc.c | 7 +-- > .../lustre/lustre/obdclass/linux/linux-module.c | 5 +- > .../lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c | 2 +- > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/lproc_osc.c | 57 +++++++++++++--------- > .../staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/lproc_ptlrpc.c | 25 +++++----- > 11 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fld/lproc_fld.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fld/lproc_fld.c > index 95e7de1..9f1db6c 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fld/lproc_fld.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fld/lproc_fld.c > @@ -87,13 +87,21 @@ fld_proc_hash_seq_show(struct seq_file *m, void *unused) > } > > static ssize_t > -fld_proc_hash_seq_write(struct file *file, const char *buffer, > - size_t count, loff_t *off) > +fld_proc_hash_seq_write(struct file *file, > + const char __user *buffer, > + size_t count, loff_t *off) > { > struct lu_client_fld *fld; > struct lu_fld_hash *hash = NULL; > + char name[80]; > int i; > > + if (count > 80) > + return -ENAMETOOLONG; > + > + if (copy_from_user(name, buffer, count) != 0) > + return -EFAULT; How was this code ever working before? And I know Joe asked, but how do you know that 80 is ok? And why on the stack? Shouldn't you just compare count to strlen(fld_hash[i].fh_name)? like you do later on? > + > fld = ((struct seq_file *)file->private_data)->private; > LASSERT(fld != NULL); > > @@ -101,7 +109,7 @@ fld_proc_hash_seq_write(struct file *file, const char *buffer, > if (count != strlen(fld_hash[i].fh_name)) > continue; > > - if (!strncmp(fld_hash[i].fh_name, buffer, count)) { > + if (!strncmp(fld_hash[i].fh_name, name, count)) { So right now the code is just accessing user memory directly? Seriously? Ugh. Anyway, I don't like large stack variables like this, can you make it dynamic instead? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/