Re: [PATCH v3] vt: Fix a missing-check bug in con_init()

[Gen Zhang]

On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 06:21:27PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 12:01:38AM +0800, Gen Zhang wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:45:29AM +0800, Gen Zhang wrote:
> > > In function con_init(), the pointer variable vc_cons[currcons].d, vc and
> > > vc->vc_screenbuf is allocated by kzalloc(). And they are used in the 
> > > following codes. However, kzalloc() returns NULL when fails, and null 
> > > pointer dereference may happen. And it will cause the kernel to crash. 
> > > Therefore, we should check the return value and handle the error.
> > > 
> > > Further, since the allcoation is in a loop, we should free all the 
> > > allocated memory in a loop.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> > > index fdd12f8..d50f68f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> > > @@ -3350,10 +3350,14 @@ static int __init con_init(void)
> > >  
> > >  	for (currcons = 0; currcons < MIN_NR_CONSOLES; currcons++) {
> > >  		vc_cons[currcons].d = vc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct vc_data), GFP_NOWAIT);
> > > +		if (!vc)
> > > +			goto fail1;
> > >  		INIT_WORK(&vc_cons[currcons].SAK_work, vc_SAK);
> > >  		tty_port_init(&vc->port);
> > >  		visual_init(vc, currcons, 1);
> > >  		vc->vc_screenbuf = kzalloc(vc->vc_screenbuf_size, GFP_NOWAIT);
> > > +		if (!vc->vc_screenbuf)
> > > +			goto fail2;
> > >  		vc_init(vc, vc->vc_rows, vc->vc_cols,
> > >  			currcons || !vc->vc_sw->con_save_screen);
> > >  	}
> > > @@ -3375,6 +3379,16 @@ static int __init con_init(void)
> > >  	register_console(&vt_console_driver);
> > >  #endif
> > >  	return 0;
> > > +fail1:
> > > +	while (currcons > 0) {
> > > +		currcons--;
> > > +		kfree(vc_cons[currcons].d->vc_screenbuf);
> > > +fail2:
> > > +		kfree(vc_cons[currcons].d);
> > > +		vc_cons[currcons].d = NULL;
> > > +	}
> > > +	console_unlock();
> > > +	return -ENOMEM;
> > >  }
> > >  console_initcall(con_init);
> > >  
> > > ---
> > Can anyone look into this patch? It's already reviewed by Nicolas Pitre
> > <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx>.
> 
> It's in my queue.  But note, given the previous history of your patches,
> it's really low on my piority list at the moment :(
> 
> greg k-h
What? All the patches were revised iteratively according to the 
maintainers' or reviewers' advice. I don't think you should look down
the patches from me. It seems not fair enough. :(

Thanks
Gen