Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1520330185.10722.401.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: Make "null" pointer dereference more robust
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     "Tobin C . Harding" <me@tobin.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:56:25 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20180306092513.ibodfsnv4xrxdlub@pathway.suse.cz>
References: <20180216210711.79901-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
         <20180216210711.79901-8-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
         <20180227155047.o74ohmoyj56up6pa@pathway.suse.cz>
         <1519752950.10722.231.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <20180228100437.o4juwxbzomkqjvjx@pathway.suse.cz>
         <1519814544.10722.266.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <20180302125118.bjd3tbuu72vgfczo@pathway.suse.cz>
         <20180302125359.szbin2kznxvoq7sc@pathway.suse.cz>
         <CAKwiHFgTbFof34oc59OU3M1=-PTzstv0uxSmoiRc8TJPJPMHVw@mail.gmail.com>
         <20180306092513.ibodfsnv4xrxdlub@pathway.suse.cz>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 10:25 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2018-03-05 16:16:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > On 2 March 2018 at 13:53, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:

> > > -       if (!ptr && *fmt != 'K' && *fmt != 'x') {
> > > +       if ((unsigned long)ptr < PAGE_SIZE && *fmt != 'K' && *fmt
> > > != 'x') {
> > 
> > ISTM that accidentally passing an ERR_PTR would be just as likely as
> > passing a NULL pointer (or some small offset from one), so if we do
> > this, shouldn't the test also cover IS_ERR values?
> 
> It would make perfect sense to catch IS_ERR_PTR(). Derefenrecing
> such pointer cause crash. But it might be pretty confusing to print
> "(null)" in this case.
> 
> I would handle this in separate patch and print "(err)" or so.
> Any volunteer to prepare the patch?

As I pointed out, we have already such check for %s in binary printf().
And it goes for "(null)". I'm not sure if changing that might break
something.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy