Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp861543imu; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:01:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4cc0NaMHwfXzq7AY87gX7E96WoTa7UcLjgacJr9WjaFJvDoALnVueEQnNZKKtjUj2p/b5v X-Received: by 2002:a62:2702:: with SMTP id n2mr2320642pfn.29.1548255663702; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:01:03 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1548255663; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=0lsWufbkArP5s4rItL34k7ffG3S5N4vTjXF3tdD9q5RggRJboWACM6akeWOLaUjrAO zsj3bOZHm4Ae1tniEBZEo1UT07nPw5gjoEJTLgV7XgK5ngjMaoLRVbphlezIE3iASXZa WdCvSgxrtuSs6p3bbGGuK0+2tq7lIeYFr8fjI7CCg7P2bY6paWBy1jZCXuRXj2c4LfCd 6Rd+7oW4dLwIa3AAak45ltPgBsoTqOPn0Rpg6PhVPyyktaGoSWX40Ha902xjGgKgmkgs Sk8CpkNFCmjakMn+ltZ7SJnz2Ub2jBgNPfbtL7G3rHgN4q+kFBpyWns7v6TQfMyPoRLp k2cg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=+QgKVuPtJ5a0mpA+NxP+tC7nd2LxjPXLsDZ66+auvOw=; b=WCsHUMfotP0LNo/Rq8Gd00vDBhVExQfoS6KLm4ZmR7mj80AxSA7clzcF1/bHJJqMtq eDv5RXGd+peimBV6buIV9zEYTBvxqdsZWVvfWlAmjmKEBPzPIy77jhRKuNjfC0yEVuIG B6rCbbM2NjlKoaD8Q5uYlWe4H8Z5I3dgDQKH4Gsi/vntM1h0JYg+MBBnlw4ZAK07qtP+ WSSSSKB+68gJqmOjzzLSnsBKm5zehC46O4eoceEq/wEPAp21S6sR6YjoVF3+p61atKAI nG9Uc0Nkedgt46jaV0jpeJmNs6tdLXcp+ehcN7bpKJb2AuRVZ1x6xCo18tVuoM/bNQSr 6nvQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z18si19312112plo.89.2019.01.23.07.00.48; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:01:03 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726120AbfAWO6Y (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:58:24 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37026 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725896AbfAWO6Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:58:24 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61DAAFDF; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:58:21 +0100 (CET) From: Miroslav Benes To: Nicholas Mc Guire cc: Josh Poimboeuf , Jessica Yu , Jiri Kosina , Petr Mladek , live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: fix size mismatch In-Reply-To: <1548239476-21110-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> Message-ID: References: <1548239476-21110-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > kzalloc(sizeof(int)) is called for an int object but then > passed into klp_shadow_alloc() using the size of the pointer. > This probably is not a problem as it will fit - but it should > be cleaned (after all this is reference code). > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire > --- > > Reported by coccicheck > samples/livepatch//livepatch-shadow-fix1.c:97:30-36: ERROR: application of sizeof to pointer > > Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig + FTRACE=y, > FUNCTION_TRACER=y, SAMPLES=y, LIVEPATCH=y SAMPLE_LIVEPATCH=m > > Patch is against 5.0-rc3 (localversion-next is next-20190123) > > samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c > index a5a5cac..643ffd5 100644 > --- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c > +++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c > @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ struct dummy *livepatch_fix1_dummy_alloc(void) > return NULL; > } > > - klp_shadow_alloc(d, SV_LEAK, sizeof(leak), GFP_KERNEL, > + klp_shadow_alloc(d, SV_LEAK, sizeof(*leak), GFP_KERNEL, > shadow_leak_ctor, leak); I think it is actually fine. We allocate something sizeof(int), but it is not important much. The leaked pointer is important. We attach the pointer as a shadow variable, so we can free it later. Thus, the size of the pointer is important. Moreover, you're introducing this with the change: samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c:97:38: warning: expression using sizeof(void) Miroslav