On 10/02/2020 00:15, SHANE LONTIS wrote:
> With the new architecture changes there are quite a few new calls to
>
> CRYPTO_UP_REF()
> CRYPTO_DOWN_REF()
>
> These methods return an int that is not being checked in lots of places.
>
> This return value only seems to affect fallback code that calls
> CRYPTO_atomic_add (which can return 0 on lock or unlock failure)
>
> SO the question is should we be checking this return value?
Yes, I think we should be.
Matt
>
>
> Note that not checking has resulted in a few assumptions in other codeā¦
> e.g the following function returns void.
>
> /crypto/evp/keymgmt_lib.c: 165 in evp_keymgmt_util_cache_pkey()
> 159 }
> 160
> 161 void evp_keymgmt_util_cache_pkey(EVP_PKEY *pk, size_t index,
> 162 EVP_KEYMGMT *keymgmt, void *keydata)
> 163 {
> 164 if (keydata != NULL) {
>>>> CID 1458170: Error handling issues (CHECKED_RETURN)
>>>> Calling "EVP_KEYMGMT_up_ref" without checking return value (as is done
>>>> elsewhere 4 out of 5 times).
> 165 EVP_KEYMGMT_up_ref(keymgmt);
>
> NOTE: EVP_KEYMGMT_up_ref() just does an CRYPTO_UP_REF() call and always
> returns 1.
>
>