Re: [PATCH] bpf: Fix unsigned 'datasec_id' compared with zero in check_pseudo_btf_id

[Denis Kirjanov]

On 11/10/20, xiakaixu1987@xxxxxxxxx <xiakaixu1987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The unsigned variable datasec_id is assigned a return value from the call
> to check_pseudo_btf_id(), which may return negative error code.
>
> Fixes coccicheck warning:
>
> ./kernel/bpf/verifier.c:9616:5-15: WARNING: Unsigned expression compared
> with zero: datasec_id > 0
>
> Reported-by: Tosk Robot <tencent_os_robot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 6200519582a6..e9d8d4309bb4 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -9572,7 +9572,7 @@ static int check_pseudo_btf_id(struct bpf_verifier_env
> *env,
>  			       struct bpf_insn *insn,
>  			       struct bpf_insn_aux_data *aux)
>  {
> -	u32 datasec_id, type, id = insn->imm;
> +	s32 datasec_id, type, id = insn->imm;

but the value is passed as u32 to btf_type_by_id()...

btf_find_by_name_kind() returns s32


>  	const struct btf_var_secinfo *vsi;
>  	const struct btf_type *datasec;
>  	const struct btf_type *t;
> --
> 2.20.0
>
>