[PATCH v2] bpf: Fix unsigned 'datasec_id' compared with zero in check_pseudo_btf_id

[PATCH v2] bpf: Fix unsigned 'datasec_id' compared with zero in check_pseudo_btf_id

[xiakaixu1987]

From: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>

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@tencent.com>
Signed-off-by: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>
---
v2:
 -split out datasec_id definition into a separate line.

 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 6200519582a6..3fea4fc04e94 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -9572,7 +9572,8 @@ 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;
+	u32 type, id = insn->imm;
 	const struct btf_var_secinfo *vsi;
 	const struct btf_type *datasec;
 	const struct btf_type *t;
-- 
2.20.0

Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: Fix unsigned 'datasec_id' compared with zero in check_pseudo_btf_id

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 6:59 PM <xiakaixu1987@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>
>
> 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@tencent.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>
> ---
> v2:
>  -split out datasec_id definition into a separate line.
>
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 6200519582a6..3fea4fc04e94 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -9572,7 +9572,8 @@ 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;
> +       u32 type, id = insn->imm;
>         const struct btf_var_secinfo *vsi;
>         const struct btf_type *datasec;
>         const struct btf_type *t;
> --
> 2.20.0
>

It would look a bit cleaner if you did it this way:

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 10da26e55130..f674b1403637 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -9585,12 +9585,13 @@ 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;
        const struct btf_var_secinfo *vsi;
        const struct btf_type *datasec;
        const struct btf_type *t;
        const char *sym_name;
        bool percpu = false;
+       u32 type, id = insn->imm;
+       s32 datasec_id;
        u64 addr;
        int i;