GitHub-Mirror/Star64_linux
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Fishwaldo/Star64_linux.git synced 2025-06-19 21:21:09 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

bug: switch data corruption check to __must_check

Browse source 
The CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() macro was designed to have callers do
something meaningful/protective on failure.  However, using "return
false" in the macro too strictly limits the design patterns of callers.
Instead, let callers handle the logic test directly, but make sure that
the result IS checked by forcing __must_check (which appears to not be
able to be used directly on macro expressions).

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170206204547.GA125312@beast
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Kees Cook 2017-02-24 15:00:38 -08:00 • committed by Linus Torvalds
parent 849de0cd2c
commit 85caa95b9f
2 changed files with 31 additions and 26 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

45
lib/list_debug.c
View file

@ -20,15 +20,16 @@
bool __list_add_valid(struct list_head *new, struct list_head *prev,
struct list_head *next)
{
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != prev,
"list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n",
prev, next->prev, next);
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != next,
"list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n",
next, prev->next, prev);
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(new == prev || new == next,
"list_add double add: new=%p, prev=%p, next=%p.\n",
new, prev, next);
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != prev,
"list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n",
prev, next->prev, next) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != next,
"list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n",
next, prev->next, prev) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(new == prev || new == next,
"list_add double add: new=%p, prev=%p, next=%p.\n",
new, prev, next))
return false;
return true;
}
@ -41,18 +42,20 @@ bool __list_del_entry_valid(struct list_head *entry)
prev = entry->prev;
next = entry->next;
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1,
"list_del corruption, %p->next is LIST_POISON1 (%p)\n",
entry, LIST_POISON1);
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev == LIST_POISON2,
"list_del corruption, %p->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%p)\n",
entry, LIST_POISON2);
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != entry,
"list_del corruption. prev->next should be %p, but was %p\n",
entry, prev->next);
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != entry,
"list_del corruption. next->prev should be %p, but was %p\n",
entry, next->prev);
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1,
"list_del corruption, %p->next is LIST_POISON1 (%p)\n",
entry, LIST_POISON1) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev == LIST_POISON2,
"list_del corruption, %p->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%p)\n",
entry, LIST_POISON2) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != entry,
"list_del corruption. prev->next should be %p, but was %p\n",
entry, prev->next) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != entry,
"list_del corruption. next->prev should be %p, but was %p\n",
entry, next->prev))
return false;
return true;
}