crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
dereferenced anyway.
Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
analysis tool.
Fixes: 7d30198ee24f ("keys: X.509 public key issuer lookup without AKID")
Suggested-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
Signed-off-by: Roman Smirnov <r.smirnov@omp.ru>
Reviewed-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
---
crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
index a5da8ccd353e..43af5fa510c0 100644
--- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
+++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
@@ -60,17 +60,18 @@ struct key *find_asymmetric_key(struct key *keyring,
char *req, *p;
int len;
- WARN_ON(!id_0 && !id_1 && !id_2);
-
if (id_0) {
lookup = id_0->data;
len = id_0->len;
} else if (id_1) {
lookup = id_1->data;
len = id_1->len;
- } else {
+ } else if (id_2) {
lookup = id_2->data;
len = id_2->len;
+ } else {
+ WARN_ON(1);
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
/* Construct an identifier "id:<keyid>". */
--
2.34.1
On Tue Sep 10, 2024 at 2:18 PM EEST, Roman Smirnov wrote:
> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
> dereferenced anyway.
>
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
> analysis tool.
Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
use of the WARN-macro.
>
> Fixes: 7d30198ee24f ("keys: X.509 public key issuer lookup without AKID")
I would still call this an improvement. It overuses warn but I don't
think this a bug.
> Suggested-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Smirnov <r.smirnov@omp.ru>
> Reviewed-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
> ---
> crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
> index a5da8ccd353e..43af5fa510c0 100644
> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
> @@ -60,17 +60,18 @@ struct key *find_asymmetric_key(struct key *keyring,
> char *req, *p;
> int len;
>
> - WARN_ON(!id_0 && !id_1 && !id_2);
> -
> if (id_0) {
> lookup = id_0->data;
> len = id_0->len;
> } else if (id_1) {
> lookup = id_1->data;
> len = id_1->len;
> - } else {
> + } else if (id_2) {
> lookup = id_2->data;
> len = id_2->len;
> + } else {
> + WARN_ON(1);
This is totally fine. It is an improvement to the current situation.
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> }
>
> /* Construct an identifier "id:<keyid>". */
Can be applied as an improvement and with the added bits about
panic_on_warn to the commit message.
BR, Jarkko
On 9/10/24 4:38 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
[...]
>> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
>> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
>> dereferenced anyway.
>>
>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
>> analysis tool.
>
> Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
> OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
> matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
>
> You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
> kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
> use of the WARN-macro.
I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
checks are avoided...
>> Fixes: 7d30198ee24f ("keys: X.509 public key issuer lookup without AKID")
>
> I would still call this an improvement. It overuses warn but I don't
> think this a bug.
I think warning about passing all NULL ptrs but then causing a NULL ptr
deref anyway wasn't really intended -- seems like a bug to me...
>> Suggested-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
>> Signed-off-by: Roman Smirnov <r.smirnov@omp.ru>
>> Reviewed-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
>> ---
I forgot to tell Roman to place the changelog here when doing an internal
review. Anyway, here is some from me:
Changed in v2:
- kept the WARN_ON() call, just moved it to avoid extra prr checks, updated
the patch description accordingly;
- reworded the patch description according to feedback.
[...]
>> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
>> index a5da8ccd353e..43af5fa510c0 100644
>> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
>> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/asymmetric_type.c
>> @@ -60,17 +60,18 @@ struct key *find_asymmetric_key(struct key *keyring,
>> char *req, *p;
>> int len;
>>
>> - WARN_ON(!id_0 && !id_1 && !id_2);
>> -
>> if (id_0) {
>> lookup = id_0->data;
>> len = id_0->len;
>> } else if (id_1) {
>> lookup = id_1->data;
>> len = id_1->len;
>> - } else {
>> + } else if (id_2) {
>> lookup = id_2->data;
>> len = id_2->len;
>> + } else {
>> + WARN_ON(1);
>
> This is totally fine. It is an improvement to the current situation.
That update also fixes a kernel oops...
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> }
>>
>> /* Construct an identifier "id:<keyid>". */
>
> Can be applied as an improvement and with the added bits about
> panic_on_warn to the commit message.
We no longer care about panic_on_warn...
> BR, Jarkko
MBR, Sergey
On Tue Sep 10, 2024 at 8:38 PM EEST, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 9/10/24 4:38 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
> >> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
> >> dereferenced anyway.
> >>
> >> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
> >> analysis tool.
> >
> > Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
> > OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
> > matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
> >
> > You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
> > kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
> > use of the WARN-macro.
>
> I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
> the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
> checks are avoided...
I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
the first paragraph:
"find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
Yep, and it changes no situation with WARN_ON() macro for better or
worse. It would logically separate issue to discuss and address so
as far as I'm concerned, with this clarification I think the change
makes sense to me.
BR, Jarkko
On 9/11/24 4:18 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
[...]
>>>> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
>>>> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
>>>> dereferenced anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
>>>> analysis tool.
>>>
>>> Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
>>> OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
>>> matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
>>> kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
>>> use of the WARN-macro.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
>> the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
>> checks are avoided...
>
> I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
> the first paragraph:
>
> "find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
> validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
Hm, what about WARN_ON(!id_0 && !id_1 && !id_2) -- it used to check all
the pointers, right? I think our variant was closer to reality... :-)
[...]
> BR, Jarkko
MBR, Sergey
On Thu Sep 12, 2024 at 4:51 PM EEST, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 9/11/24 4:18 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> [...]
>
> >>>> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
> >>>> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
> >>>> dereferenced anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
> >>>> analysis tool.
> >>>
> >>> Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
> >>> OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
> >>> matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
> >>>
> >>> You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
> >>> kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
> >>> use of the WARN-macro.
> >>
> >> I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
> >> the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
> >> checks are avoided...
> >
> > I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
> > the first paragraph:
> >
> > "find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
> > validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
>
> Hm, what about WARN_ON(!id_0 && !id_1 && !id_2) -- it used to check all
> the pointers, right? I think our variant was closer to reality... :-)
Right (lazy validation, first null ignores rest)
BR, Jarkko
On 9/12/24 5:27 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
[...]
>>>>>> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
>>>>>> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
>>>>>> dereferenced anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
>>>>>> analysis tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
>>>>> OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
>>>>> matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
>>>>> kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
>>>>> use of the WARN-macro.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
>>>> the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
>>>> checks are avoided...
>>>
>>> I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
>>> the first paragraph:
>>>
>>> "find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
>>> validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
>>
>> Hm, what about WARN_ON(!id_0 && !id_1 && !id_2) -- it used to check all
>> the pointers, right? I think our variant was closer to reality... :-)
>
> Right (lazy validation, first null ignores rest)
No, contrariwise: since we use && and !, first non-NULL would ignore the rest.
> BR, Jarkko
MBR, Sergey
On Thu Sep 12, 2024 at 8:36 PM EEST, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 9/12/24 5:27 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> [...]
>
> >>>>>> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
> >>>>>> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
> >>>>>> dereferenced anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
> >>>>>> analysis tool.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
> >>>>> OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
> >>>>> matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
> >>>>> kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
> >>>>> use of the WARN-macro.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
> >>>> the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
> >>>> checks are avoided...
> >>>
> >>> I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
> >>> the first paragraph:
> >>>
> >>> "find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
> >>> validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
> >>
> >> Hm, what about WARN_ON(!id_0 && !id_1 && !id_2) -- it used to check all
> >> the pointers, right? I think our variant was closer to reality... :-)
> >
> > Right (lazy validation, first null ignores rest)
>
> No, contrariwise: since we use && and !, first non-NULL would ignore the rest.
Oops correct :-/
BR, Jarkko
On Wed Sep 11, 2024 at 4:18 PM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue Sep 10, 2024 at 8:38 PM EEST, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> > On 9/10/24 4:38 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > >> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
> > >> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
> > >> dereferenced anyway.
> > >>
> > >> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
> > >> analysis tool.
> > >
> > > Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
> > > OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
> > > matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
> > >
> > > You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
> > > kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
> > > use of the WARN-macro.
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
> > the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
> > checks are avoided...
>
> I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
> the first paragraph:
>
> "find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
> validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
>
> Yep, and it changes no situation with WARN_ON() macro for better or
> worse. It would logically separate issue to discuss and address so
> as far as I'm concerned, with this clarification I think the change
> makes sense to me.
Actually explicitly stating that call paths leading to WARN_ON()
invocation are intact by the commit (as a reminder for future).
BR, Jarkko
On 9/11/24 4:19 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
[...]
>>>>> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
>>>>> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
>>>>> dereferenced anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
>>>>> analysis tool.
>>>>
>>>> Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
>>>> OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
>>>> matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
>>>> kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
>>>> use of the WARN-macro.
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
>>> the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
>>> checks are avoided...
>>
>> I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
>> the first paragraph:
>>
>> "find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
>> validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
>>
>> Yep, and it changes no situation with WARN_ON() macro for better or
>> worse. It would logically separate issue to discuss and address so
>> as far as I'm concerned, with this clarification I think the change
>> makes sense to me.
>
> Actually explicitly stating that call paths leading to WARN_ON()
> invocation are intact by the commit (as a reminder for future).
OK...
Do you still think the Fixes tag should be dropped (and thus the
Reported-by tag would become unnecessary?)?
> BR, Jarkko
MBR, Sergey
On Wed Sep 11, 2024 at 5:45 PM EEST, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 9/11/24 4:19 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>>> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
> >>>>> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
> >>>>> dereferenced anyway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
> >>>>> analysis tool.
> >>>>
> >>>> Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
> >>>> OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
> >>>> matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
> >>>> kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
> >>>> use of the WARN-macro.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
> >>> the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
> >>> checks are avoided...
> >>
> >> I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
> >> the first paragraph:
> >>
> >> "find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
> >> validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
> >>
> >> Yep, and it changes no situation with WARN_ON() macro for better or
> >> worse. It would logically separate issue to discuss and address so
> >> as far as I'm concerned, with this clarification I think the change
> >> makes sense to me.
> >
> > Actually explicitly stating that call paths leading to WARN_ON()
> > invocation are intact by the commit (as a reminder for future).
>
> OK...
> Do you still think the Fixes tag should be dropped (and thus the
> Reported-by tag would become unnecessary?)?
I think we can keep them.
BR, Jarkko
On Wed Sep 11, 2024 at 5:45 PM EEST, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 9/11/24 4:19 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>>> In find_asymmetric_key(), if all NULLs are passed in id_{0,1,2} parameters
> >>>>> the kernel will first emit WARN and then have an oops because id_2 gets
> >>>>> dereferenced anyway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Svace static
> >>>>> analysis tool.
> >>>>
> >>>> Weird, I recall that I've either sent a patch to address the same site
> >>>> OR have commented a patch with similar reasoning. Well, it does not
> >>>> matter, I think it this makes sense to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> You could further add to the motivation that given the panic_on_warn
> >>>> kernel command-line parameter, it is for the best limit the scope and
> >>>> use of the WARN-macro.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand what you mean -- this version of the patch keeps
> >>> the WARN_ON() call, it just moves that call, so that the duplicate id_{0,1,2}
> >>> checks are avoided...
> >>
> >> I overlooked the code change (my bad sorry). Here's a better version of
> >> the first paragraph:
> >>
> >> "find_asymmetric_keys() has nullity checks of id_0 and id_1 but ignores
> >> validation for id_2. Check nullity also for id_2."
> >>
> >> Yep, and it changes no situation with WARN_ON() macro for better or
> >> worse. It would logically separate issue to discuss and address so
> >> as far as I'm concerned, with this clarification I think the change
> >> makes sense to me.
> >
> > Actually explicitly stating that call paths leading to WARN_ON()
> > invocation are intact by the commit (as a reminder for future).
>
> OK...
> Do you still think the Fixes tag should be dropped (and thus the
> Reported-by tag would become unnecessary?)?
Good question but I think we should keep them (spent 15 minutes thinking
about this).
It's a glitch at least and would not do harm for stable series to have
it like that :-) So if you polish the message, send a new version I'll
pick it, and put to my next PR.
Thanks for the patience with this.
>
> > BR, Jarkko
>
> MBR, Sergey
BR, Jarkko
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.