From a3772a806a04164f2fc9a956bb997c4b8c8179e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kees Cook Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:00:38 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] UPSTREAM: bug: switch data corruption check to __must_check (cherry-picked from 85caa95b9f19bb3a26d7e025d1134760b69e0c40) 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). Change-Id: I635dc2f39959104ea8b475d2d5018af3502f33ba Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170206204547.GA125312@beast Signed-off-by: Kees Cook Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala --- include/linux/bug.h | 12 +++++++----- lib/list_debug.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/bug.h b/include/linux/bug.h index 2bafb1d6ee89..833746d361cf 100644 --- a/include/linux/bug.h +++ b/include/linux/bug.h @@ -112,18 +112,20 @@ static inline enum bug_trap_type report_bug(unsigned long bug_addr, /* * Since detected data corruption should stop operation on the affected - * structures, this returns false if the corruption condition is found. + * structures. Return value must be checked and sanely acted on by caller. */ +static inline __must_check bool check_data_corruption(bool v) { return v; } #define CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(condition, fmt, ...) \ - do { \ - if (unlikely(condition)) { \ + check_data_corruption(({ \ + bool corruption = unlikely(condition); \ + if (corruption) { \ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION)) { \ pr_err(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ BUG(); \ } else \ WARN(1, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ - return false; \ } \ - } while (0) + corruption; \ + })) #endif /* _LINUX_BUG_H */ diff --git a/lib/list_debug.c b/lib/list_debug.c index 7f7bfa55eb6d..a34db8d27667 100644 --- a/lib/list_debug.c +++ b/lib/list_debug.c @@ -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; }