85caa95b9f
The CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() macro was designed to have callers do something meaningful/protective on failure. However, using "return false" in the macro too strictly limits the design patterns of callers. Instead, let callers handle the logic test directly, but make sure that the result IS checked by forcing __must_check (which appears to not be able to be used directly on macro expressions). Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170206204547.GA125312@beast Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
62 lines
1.8 KiB
C
62 lines
1.8 KiB
C
/*
|
|
* Copyright 2006, Red Hat, Inc., Dave Jones
|
|
* Released under the General Public License (GPL).
|
|
*
|
|
* This file contains the linked list validation for DEBUG_LIST.
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/export.h>
|
|
#include <linux/list.h>
|
|
#include <linux/bug.h>
|
|
#include <linux/kernel.h>
|
|
#include <linux/rculist.h>
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* Check that the data structures for the list manipulations are reasonably
|
|
* valid. Failures here indicate memory corruption (and possibly an exploit
|
|
* attempt).
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
bool __list_add_valid(struct list_head *new, struct list_head *prev,
|
|
struct list_head *next)
|
|
{
|
|
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != prev,
|
|
"list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n",
|
|
prev, next->prev, next) ||
|
|
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != next,
|
|
"list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n",
|
|
next, prev->next, prev) ||
|
|
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(new == prev || new == next,
|
|
"list_add double add: new=%p, prev=%p, next=%p.\n",
|
|
new, prev, next))
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
}
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__list_add_valid);
|
|
|
|
bool __list_del_entry_valid(struct list_head *entry)
|
|
{
|
|
struct list_head *prev, *next;
|
|
|
|
prev = entry->prev;
|
|
next = entry->next;
|
|
|
|
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1,
|
|
"list_del corruption, %p->next is LIST_POISON1 (%p)\n",
|
|
entry, LIST_POISON1) ||
|
|
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev == LIST_POISON2,
|
|
"list_del corruption, %p->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%p)\n",
|
|
entry, LIST_POISON2) ||
|
|
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != entry,
|
|
"list_del corruption. prev->next should be %p, but was %p\n",
|
|
entry, prev->next) ||
|
|
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != entry,
|
|
"list_del corruption. next->prev should be %p, but was %p\n",
|
|
entry, next->prev))
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__list_del_entry_valid);
|