Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1433278 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] lpfc: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] lpfc: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference Tyrel Datwyler <turtle.in.the.kernel@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 22:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] lpfc: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de> - 2016-07-05 14:40 +0200

#1433278 — Re: [PATCH] lpfc: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference

On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Check for the existance of pciob->vport before accessing it.

piocb mispelled.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c | 13 ++++---------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> index 70edf21..134078f 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> @@ -1329,15 +1329,10 @@ lpfc_sli_ringtxcmpl_put(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct lpfc_sli_ring *pring,
>  	if ((unlikely(pring->ringno == LPFC_ELS_RING)) &&
>  	   (piocb->iocb.ulpCommand != CMD_ABORT_XRI_CN) &&
>  	   (piocb->iocb.ulpCommand != CMD_CLOSE_XRI_CN) &&
> -	 (!(piocb->vport->load_flag & FC_UNLOADING))) {
> -		if (!piocb->vport)
> -			BUG();

Granted the previous code would crash and burn in the if statement prior
to the BUG() assertion if piocb->vport was NULL, but is the condition
!piocb->vport still a bug here? Should that case still be asserted?

-Tyrel

> -		else
> -			mod_timer(&piocb->vport->els_tmofunc,
> -				jiffies +
> -				msecs_to_jiffies(1000 * (phba->fc_ratov << 1)));
> -	}
> -
> +	    piocb->vport && !(piocb->vport->load_flag & FC_UNLOADING))
> +		mod_timer(&piocb->vport->els_tmofunc,
> +			  jiffies +
> +			  msecs_to_jiffies(1000 * (phba->fc_ratov << 1)));
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1436966

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 01:28:19PM -0700, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 06:00 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > Check for the existance of pciob->vport before accessing it.
> 
> piocb mispelled.

Oops

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
> > ---
> >  drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c | 13 ++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > index 70edf21..134078f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
> > @@ -1329,15 +1329,10 @@ lpfc_sli_ringtxcmpl_put(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct lpfc_sli_ring *pring,
> >  	if ((unlikely(pring->ringno == LPFC_ELS_RING)) &&
> >  	   (piocb->iocb.ulpCommand != CMD_ABORT_XRI_CN) &&
> >  	   (piocb->iocb.ulpCommand != CMD_CLOSE_XRI_CN) &&
> > -	 (!(piocb->vport->load_flag & FC_UNLOADING))) {
> > -		if (!piocb->vport)
> > -			BUG();
> 
> Granted the previous code would crash and burn in the if statement prior
> to the BUG() assertion if piocb->vport was NULL, but is the condition
> !piocb->vport still a bug here? Should that case still be asserted?

Yes, you're right. Let me see how to solve it _and_ make the statement a bit
more readable.

Thanks,
	Johannes

-- 
Johannes Thumshirn                                          Storage
jthumshirn@suse.de                                +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web