| Message ID | 1634556651-38702-1-git-send-email-wangqing@vivo.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [V2] net: bpf: switch over to memdup_user() | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Single patches do not need cover letters |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | warning | Target tree name not specified in the subject |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | success | CCed 12 of 12 maintainers |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | fail | Errors and warnings before: 17 this patch: 17 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| netdev/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 39 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 13 this patch: 13 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | success | PR summary |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf | success | VM_Test |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-PR | success | PR summary |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next | success | VM_Test |
Qing Wang wrote: > This patch fixes the following Coccinelle warning: > > net/bpf/test_run.c:361:8-15: WARNING opportunity for memdup_user > net/bpf/test_run.c:1055:8-15: WARNING opportunity for memdup_user > > Use memdup_user rather than duplicating its implementation > This is a little bit restricted to reduce false positives > > Signed-off-by: Qing Wang <wangqing@vivo.com> > --- > net/bpf/test_run.c | 21 ++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) LGTM, but subject line should be '[PATCH bpf-next v2]' there is no reason to push to fixes trees here. Also might be worth noting that the original kzalloc could have just been a kalloc because copy_from_user will zero any extra bytes. Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> > > diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c > index 5296087..fbda8f5 > --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c > +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c > @@ -358,13 +358,9 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp(struct bpf_prog *prog, > return -EINVAL; > > if (ctx_size_in) { > - info.ctx = kzalloc(ctx_size_in, GFP_USER); > - if (!info.ctx) > - return -ENOMEM; > - if (copy_from_user(info.ctx, ctx_in, ctx_size_in)) { > - err = -EFAULT; > - goto out; > - } > + info.ctx = memdup_user(ctx_in, ctx_size_in); > + if (IS_ERR(info.ctx)) > + return PTR_ERR(info.ctx); > } else { > info.ctx = NULL; > } > @@ -392,7 +388,6 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp(struct bpf_prog *prog, > copy_to_user(&uattr->test.retval, &info.retval, sizeof(u32))) > err = -EFAULT; > > -out: > kfree(info.ctx); > return err; > } > @@ -1052,13 +1047,9 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_syscall(struct bpf_prog *prog, > return -EINVAL; > > if (ctx_size_in) { > - ctx = kzalloc(ctx_size_in, GFP_USER); > - if (!ctx) > - return -ENOMEM; > - if (copy_from_user(ctx, ctx_in, ctx_size_in)) { > - err = -EFAULT; > - goto out; > - } > + ctx = memdup_user(ctx_in, ctx_size_in); > + if (IS_ERR(ctx)) > + return PTR_ERR(ctx); > } > > rcu_read_lock_trace(); > -- > 2.7.4 >
diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c index 5296087..fbda8f5 --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c @@ -358,13 +358,9 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp(struct bpf_prog *prog, return -EINVAL; if (ctx_size_in) { - info.ctx = kzalloc(ctx_size_in, GFP_USER); - if (!info.ctx) - return -ENOMEM; - if (copy_from_user(info.ctx, ctx_in, ctx_size_in)) { - err = -EFAULT; - goto out; - } + info.ctx = memdup_user(ctx_in, ctx_size_in); + if (IS_ERR(info.ctx)) + return PTR_ERR(info.ctx); } else { info.ctx = NULL; } @@ -392,7 +388,6 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp(struct bpf_prog *prog, copy_to_user(&uattr->test.retval, &info.retval, sizeof(u32))) err = -EFAULT; -out: kfree(info.ctx); return err; } @@ -1052,13 +1047,9 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_syscall(struct bpf_prog *prog, return -EINVAL; if (ctx_size_in) { - ctx = kzalloc(ctx_size_in, GFP_USER); - if (!ctx) - return -ENOMEM; - if (copy_from_user(ctx, ctx_in, ctx_size_in)) { - err = -EFAULT; - goto out; - } + ctx = memdup_user(ctx_in, ctx_size_in); + if (IS_ERR(ctx)) + return PTR_ERR(ctx); } rcu_read_lock_trace();
This patch fixes the following Coccinelle warning: net/bpf/test_run.c:361:8-15: WARNING opportunity for memdup_user net/bpf/test_run.c:1055:8-15: WARNING opportunity for memdup_user Use memdup_user rather than duplicating its implementation This is a little bit restricted to reduce false positives Signed-off-by: Qing Wang <wangqing@vivo.com> --- net/bpf/test_run.c | 21 ++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)