Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:57:04 -0400
From:   Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>,
        Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@broadcom.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Shivasharan S <shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        megaraidlinux.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] scsi/megaraid: Prevent
 kernel-infoleak in kioc_to_mimd()
Message-ID: <20200728105704.GA407553@PWN>
References: <20200727210235.327835-1-yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>
 <20200728084137.GC2571@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200728084137.GC2571@kadam>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:41:37AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 05:02:35PM -0400, Peilin Ye wrote:
> > hinfo_to_cinfo() does no operation on `cinfo` when `hinfo` is NULL,
> > causing kioc_to_mimd() to copy uninitialized stack memory to userspace.
> > Fix it by initializing `cinfo` with memset().
> 
> But "hinfo" can't be NULL so this patch isn't required.  It's a bit
> hard for Smatch to follow the code.
> 
> We know that "opcode" is 82 so the buffer is allocated by mimd_to_kioc()
> -> mraid_mm_attach_buf().

You are right. mraid_mm_ioctl() returns -ENOMEM and never reaches
kioc_to_mimd() if mraid_mm_attach_buf() failed to get a buffer, so
`hinfo` can never be NULL for kioc_to_mimd().

Next time I will trace the data flow more carefully. Thank you for
pointing this out!

Peilin Ye

> Generally, don't silence static checker warnings unless it makes the
> code more readable.  It's the checker writer's job to fix their own code.
> In this case, that's me, but parsing the code is quite complicated and I
> don't have a plan for how to fix it.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>