Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202211171422.7A7A7A9@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <202211171422.7A7A7A9@keescook>
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 14:49:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CANn89iLQcLNX+x_gJCMy5kD5GW3Xg8U4s0VGHtSuN8iegmhjxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Coverity: __sock_gen_cookie(): Error handling issues
To:     coverity-bot <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@nvidia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 2:22 PM coverity-bot <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by
> Coverity from a scan of next-20221117 as part of the linux-next scan project:
> https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan
>
> You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified
> lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits:
>
>   Wed Nov 16 12:42:01 2022 +0000
>     4ebf802cf1c6 ("net: __sock_gen_cookie() cleanup")
>
> Coverity reported the following:
>
> *** CID 1527347:  Error handling issues  (CHECKED_RETURN)
> net/core/sock_diag.c:33 in __sock_gen_cookie()
> 27     {
> 28      u64 res = atomic64_read(&sk->sk_cookie);
> 29
> 30      if (!res) {
> 31              u64 new = gen_cookie_next(&sock_cookie);
> 32
> vvv     CID 1527347:  Error handling issues  (CHECKED_RETURN)
> vvv     Calling "atomic64_try_cmpxchg" without checking return value (as is done elsewhere 8 out of 9 times).
> 33              atomic64_try_cmpxchg(&sk->sk_cookie, &res, new);


Hmmm. for some reason I thought @res was always updated...

A fix would be to read sk->sk_cookie, but I guess your tool will still
complain we do not care
of  atomic64_try_cmpxchg() return value ?

diff --git a/net/core/sock_diag.c b/net/core/sock_diag.c
index b11593cae5a09b15a10d6ba35bccc22263cb8fc8..58efb9c1c8dd4f8e5a3009a0176e1b96487daaff
100644
--- a/net/core/sock_diag.c
+++ b/net/core/sock_diag.c
@@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ u64 __sock_gen_cookie(struct sock *sk)
                u64 new = gen_cookie_next(&sock_cookie);

                atomic64_try_cmpxchg(&sk->sk_cookie, &res, new);
+               /* Another cpu/thread might have won the race,
+                * reload the final value.
+                */
+               res = atomic64_read(&sk->sk_cookie);
        }
        return res;
 }