From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2EFC433E0 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1532074D for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:51:34 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CA1532074D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1867E6B0003; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:51:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 137F26B0005; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:51:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 04CAD6B0006; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:51:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0007.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.7]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A686B0003 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0463569 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:51:33 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76933246866.03.uncle27_3003d7026dfa Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA5728A4E9 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:51:33 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: uncle27_3003d7026dfa X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2837 Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.190]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DGGEMS407-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C57CDF8AAA548630529D; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:51:27 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.166.215.157] (10.166.215.157) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:51:25 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/srpt: Fix a potential null pointer dereference To: Bart Van Assche , , References: <20200615091220.6439-1-jingxiangfeng@huawei.com> <7366b608-4474-cfaa-c465-957fd2d2366d@acm.org> CC: , , , From: Jing Xiangfeng Message-ID: <5EE8178C.9090005@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:51:24 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7366b608-4474-cfaa-c465-957fd2d2366d@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.166.215.157] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5CA5728A4E9 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2020/6/15 21:37, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 2020-06-15 02:12, Jing Xiangfeng wrote: >> In srpt_cm_req_recv(), it is possible that sdev is NULL, >> so we should test sdev before using it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jing Xiangfeng >> --- >> drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c >> index 98552749d71c..72053254bf84 100644 >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c >> @@ -2143,7 +2143,7 @@ static int srpt_cm_req_recv(struct srpt_device *const sdev, >> const struct srp_login_req *req, >> const char *src_addr) >> { >> - struct srpt_port *sport = &sdev->port[port_num - 1]; >> + struct srpt_port *sport; >> struct srpt_nexus *nexus; >> struct srp_login_rsp *rsp = NULL; >> struct srp_login_rej *rej = NULL; >> @@ -2162,6 +2162,7 @@ static int srpt_cm_req_recv(struct srpt_device *const sdev, >> if (WARN_ON(!sdev || !req)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> + sport = &sdev->port[port_num - 1]; >> it_iu_len = be32_to_cpu(req->req_it_iu_len); >> > > Please remove the (!sdev || !req) check instead of making the above > change. It's easy to show that both pointers are always valid. OK, I will send a v2 with this change. Thanks > > Thanks, > > Bart. > . >