Re: Coverity: __sock_gen_cookie(): Error handling issues

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:49:55PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 2:22 PM coverity-bot <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by
> > Coverity from a scan of next-20221117 as part of the linux-next scan project:
> > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan
> >
> > You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified
> > lines of code (noted below) that were touched by commits:
> >
> >   Wed Nov 16 12:42:01 2022 +0000
> >     4ebf802cf1c6 ("net: __sock_gen_cookie() cleanup")
> >
> > Coverity reported the following:
> >
> > *** CID 1527347:  Error handling issues  (CHECKED_RETURN)
> > net/core/sock_diag.c:33 in __sock_gen_cookie()
> > 27     {
> > 28      u64 res = atomic64_read(&sk->sk_cookie);
> > 29
> > 30      if (!res) {
> > 31              u64 new = gen_cookie_next(&sock_cookie);
> > 32
> > vvv     CID 1527347:  Error handling issues  (CHECKED_RETURN)
> > vvv     Calling "atomic64_try_cmpxchg" without checking return value (as is done elsewhere 8 out of 9 times).
> > 33              atomic64_try_cmpxchg(&sk->sk_cookie, &res, new);
> 
> 
> Hmmm. for some reason I thought @res was always updated...
> 
> A fix would be to read sk->sk_cookie, but I guess your tool will still
> complain we do not care
> of  atomic64_try_cmpxchg() return value ?
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/sock_diag.c b/net/core/sock_diag.c
> index b11593cae5a09b15a10d6ba35bccc22263cb8fc8..58efb9c1c8dd4f8e5a3009a0176e1b96487daaff
> 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock_diag.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock_diag.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ u64 __sock_gen_cookie(struct sock *sk)
>                 u64 new = gen_cookie_next(&sock_cookie);
> 
>                 atomic64_try_cmpxchg(&sk->sk_cookie, &res, new);
> +               /* Another cpu/thread might have won the race,
> +                * reload the final value.
> +                */
> +               res = atomic64_read(&sk->sk_cookie);
>         }
>         return res;
>  }

I think it's saying it was expecting an update loop -- i.e. to make sure
the value actually got swapped (the "try" part...)?

-- 
Kees Cook