On 02/12/2013 02:22 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:48:58PM -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> Dynamically allocate the NLM host structure in order to avoid stack overflow.
>> nlmsvc_mark_resources() is several call levels deep in a stack
>> that has a number of large variables. 512 bytes seems like a lot
>> on the stack at this point.
>>
>> smatch analysis:
>>
>> fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:366 nlmsvc_mark_resources() warn: 'hint' puts
>> 512 bytes on stack
>>
>> Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.mykleb...@netapp.com>
>> Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfie...@fieldses.org>
>> Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gard...@canonical.com>
>> ---
>> fs/lockd/svcsubs.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c b/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c
>> index b904f41..f3abb7f 100644
>> --- a/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c
>> +++ b/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c
>> @@ -363,11 +363,15 @@ nlmsvc_is_client(void *data, struct nlm_host *dummy)
>> void
>> nlmsvc_mark_resources(struct net *net)
>> {
>> - struct nlm_host hint;
>> + struct nlm_host *hint = kzalloc(sizeof(*hint), GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> - dprintk("lockd: nlmsvc_mark_resources for net %p\n", net);
>> - hint.net = net;
>> - nlm_traverse_files(&hint, nlmsvc_mark_host, NULL);
>> + if (hint) {
>> + dprintk("lockd: nlmsvc_mark_resources for net %p\n", net);
>> + hint->net = net;
>> + nlm_traverse_files(hint, nlmsvc_mark_host, NULL);
>> + }
>
> Silently neglecting to do this looks like a bad idea.
>
> It's strange that we're passing in an nlm_host when all we actually use
> is the struct net*. Why not just change this to pass in the net
> instead?
>
> --b.
>
It won't really be silent. k[zm]alloc() dumps a stack trace on failure
to allocate unless GFP_NOWARN is set in the flags. I think this is a bit
better then possibly corrupting the stack.
Changing the prototype to just pass in 'net' has knock on effects that
make this patch a whole lot bigger. You'd have to change the code within
a bunch of functions which are difficult to verify at compile time
because of the use of 'void *data' as the first parameter. Is there
still a good reason for that parameter to be opaque ?
rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gard...@canonical.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
