diff mbox series

mm/sparse:avoid null pointer access in memory_present()

Message ID 20230617044036.3985524-1-zhiguangni01@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series mm/sparse:avoid null pointer access in memory_present() | expand

Commit Message

Liam Ni June 17, 2023, 4:40 a.m. UTC
__nr_to_section() may return a null pointer,
before accessing the member variable section_mem_map,
we should first determine whether it is a null pointer.

Signed-off-by: Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@gmail.com>
---
 mm/sparse.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Andrew Morton June 17, 2023, 5:44 a.m. UTC | #1
On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 14:40:36 +1000 Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@gmail.com> wrote:

> __nr_to_section() may return a null pointer,
> before accessing the member variable section_mem_map,
> we should first determine whether it is a null pointer.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/sparse.c
> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void __init memory_present(int nid, unsigned long start, unsigned long en
>  		set_section_nid(section, nid);
>  
>  		ms = __nr_to_section(section);
> -		if (!ms->section_mem_map) {
> +		if (ms && !ms->section_mem_map) {
>  			ms->section_mem_map = sparse_encode_early_nid(nid) |
>  							SECTION_IS_ONLINE;
>  			__section_mark_present(ms, section);

I'm suspecting that if __nr_to_section() returns NULL here, we should
just panic.  But a null-deref gives the same information, so why change
things?
Liam Ni June 17, 2023, 6:17 a.m. UTC | #2
On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 at 13:44, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 14:40:36 +1000 Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > __nr_to_section() may return a null pointer,
> > before accessing the member variable section_mem_map,
> > we should first determine whether it is a null pointer.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void __init memory_present(int nid, unsigned long start, unsigned long en
> >               set_section_nid(section, nid);
> >
> >               ms = __nr_to_section(section);
> > -             if (!ms->section_mem_map) {
> > +             if (ms && !ms->section_mem_map) {
> >                       ms->section_mem_map = sparse_encode_early_nid(nid) |
> >                                                       SECTION_IS_ONLINE;
> >                       __section_mark_present(ms, section);
>
> I'm suspecting that if __nr_to_section() returns NULL here, we should
> just panic.  But a null-deref gives the same information, so why change
> things?

Do you mean if ms is a null pointer,ms->section_mem_map will cause
system panic,so we needn't change?

>
Mike Rapoport June 17, 2023, 7 a.m. UTC | #3
On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 02:17:58PM +0800, Liam Ni wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 at 13:44, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 14:40:36 +1000 Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > __nr_to_section() may return a null pointer,
> > > before accessing the member variable section_mem_map,
> > > we should first determine whether it is a null pointer.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > > @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void __init memory_present(int nid, unsigned long start, unsigned long en
> > >               set_section_nid(section, nid);
> > >
> > >               ms = __nr_to_section(section);
> > > -             if (!ms->section_mem_map) {
> > > +             if (ms && !ms->section_mem_map) {
> > >                       ms->section_mem_map = sparse_encode_early_nid(nid) |
> > >                                                       SECTION_IS_ONLINE;
> > >                       __section_mark_present(ms, section);
> >
> > I'm suspecting that if __nr_to_section() returns NULL here, we should
> > just panic.  But a null-deref gives the same information, so why change
> > things?
> 
> Do you mean if ms is a null pointer,ms->section_mem_map will cause
> system panic,so we needn't change?
 
Yes, if __nr_to_section ever returns NULL the system will crash anyway.
Liam Ni June 17, 2023, 8:59 a.m. UTC | #4
On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 at 15:01, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 02:17:58PM +0800, Liam Ni wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 at 13:44, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 14:40:36 +1000 Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > __nr_to_section() may return a null pointer,
> > > > before accessing the member variable section_mem_map,
> > > > we should first determine whether it is a null pointer.
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > > > @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void __init memory_present(int nid, unsigned long start, unsigned long en
> > > >               set_section_nid(section, nid);
> > > >
> > > >               ms = __nr_to_section(section);
> > > > -             if (!ms->section_mem_map) {
> > > > +             if (ms && !ms->section_mem_map) {
> > > >                       ms->section_mem_map = sparse_encode_early_nid(nid) |
> > > >                                                       SECTION_IS_ONLINE;
> > > >                       __section_mark_present(ms, section);
> > >
> > > I'm suspecting that if __nr_to_section() returns NULL here, we should
> > > just panic.  But a null-deref gives the same information, so why change
> > > things?
> >
> > Do you mean if ms is a null pointer,ms->section_mem_map will cause
> > system panic,so we needn't change?
>
> Yes, if __nr_to_section ever returns NULL the system will crash anyway.

I got it,do we need to print some information by panic()?

>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
Mike Rapoport June 18, 2023, 7:16 a.m. UTC | #5
On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 04:59:46PM +0800, Liam Ni wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 at 15:01, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 02:17:58PM +0800, Liam Ni wrote:
> > > On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 at 13:44, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 14:40:36 +1000 Liam Ni <zhiguangni01@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > __nr_to_section() may return a null pointer,
> > > > > before accessing the member variable section_mem_map,
> > > > > we should first determine whether it is a null pointer.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > > > > @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void __init memory_present(int nid, unsigned long start, unsigned long en
> > > > >               set_section_nid(section, nid);
> > > > >
> > > > >               ms = __nr_to_section(section);
> > > > > -             if (!ms->section_mem_map) {
> > > > > +             if (ms && !ms->section_mem_map) {
> > > > >                       ms->section_mem_map = sparse_encode_early_nid(nid) |
> > > > >                                                       SECTION_IS_ONLINE;
> > > > >                       __section_mark_present(ms, section);
> > > >
> > > > I'm suspecting that if __nr_to_section() returns NULL here, we should
> > > > just panic.  But a null-deref gives the same information, so why change
> > > > things?
> > >
> > > Do you mean if ms is a null pointer,ms->section_mem_map will cause
> > > system panic,so we needn't change?
> >
> > Yes, if __nr_to_section ever returns NULL the system will crash anyway.
> 
> I got it,do we need to print some information by panic()?

Accessing a NULL pointer will cause panic and there will be lots of
information spilled into the log anyway.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
index 4e6e3a9d49dc..37fa3818bc25 100644
--- a/mm/sparse.c
+++ b/mm/sparse.c
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@  static void __init memory_present(int nid, unsigned long start, unsigned long en
 		set_section_nid(section, nid);
 
 		ms = __nr_to_section(section);
-		if (!ms->section_mem_map) {
+		if (ms && !ms->section_mem_map) {
 			ms->section_mem_map = sparse_encode_early_nid(nid) |
 							SECTION_IS_ONLINE;
 			__section_mark_present(ms, section);