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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180621201427.4961-1-garrmcnu@gmail.com> <20180622.072056.1223319763674661318.davem@davemloft.net>
 <e4fb2883-1643-a921-a138-d1255831a9bd@cumulusnetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <e4fb2883-1643-a921-a138-d1255831a9bd@cumulusnetworks.com>
From:   Garry McNulty <garrmcnu@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:05:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CANysgeEFOnu6DxbpV2oA3=tvz+qJnfNy=TmG=cpRndcLmCNe1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: bridge: fix potential null pointer dereference on
 return from br_port_get_rtnl()
To:     nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        stephen@networkplumber.org,
        =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFDDrXJrbw==?= <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 00:35, Nikolay Aleksandrov
<nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2018 01:20 AM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Garry McNulty <garrmcnu@gmail.com>
> > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:14:27 +0100
> >
> >> br_port_get_rtnl() can return NULL if the network device is not a bridge
> >> port (IFF_BRIDGE_PORT flag not set). br_port_slave_changelink() and
> >> br_port_fill_slave_info() callbacks dereference this pointer without
> >> checking. Currently this is not a problem because slave devices always
> >> set this flag. Add null check in case these conditions ever changye.
> >>
> >> Detected by CoverityScan, CID 1339613 ("Dereference null return value")
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Garry McNulty <garrmcnu@gmail.com>
> >
> > I don't think this is reasonable.
> >
> > The bridge code will never, ever, install a slave that doesn't have
> > that bit set.  It's the most fundamental aspect of how these objects
> > are managed.
> >
> +1
>
> This keeps coming up, here's the previous one:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/896046/
>
> Please do a more thorough check if these conditions can actually occur.
> In this case, as Dave said, they cannot.
>
> To be explicit as with the patch I mentioned above:
> Nacked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>
>
> You can find more info in my reply to the patch above.
>
> Thanks,
>  Nik

Thanks for reviewing and for the feedback.

Regards

Garry