Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk: replace ringbuffer

[Petr Mladek]

On Wed 2020-02-05 16:48:32, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-02-05, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 3BUG: KASAN: wild-memory-access in copy_data+0x129/0x220>
> > 3Write of size 4 at addr 5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a by task cat/474>
> 
> The problem was due to an uninitialized pointer.
> 
> Very recently the ringbuffer API was expanded so that it could
> optionally count lines in a record. This made it possible for me to
> implement record_print_text_inline(), which can do all the kmsg_dump
> multi-line madness without requiring a temporary buffer. Rather than
> passing an extra argument around for the optional line count, I added
> the text_line_count pointer to the printk_record struct. And since line
> counting is rarely needed, it is only performed if text_line_count is
> non-NULL.
> 
> I oversaw that devkmsg_open() setup a printk_record and so I did not see
> to add the extra NULL initialization of text_line_count. There should be
> be an initializer function/macro to avoid this danger.
> 
> John Ogness
> 
> The quick fixup:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index d0d24ee1d1f4..5ad67ff60cd9 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -883,6 +883,7 @@ static int devkmsg_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	user->record.text_buf_size = sizeof(user->text_buf);
>  	user->record.dict_buf = &user->dict_buf[0];
>  	user->record.dict_buf_size = sizeof(user->dict_buf);
> +	user->record.text_line_count = NULL;

The NULL pointer hidden in the structure also complicates the code
reading. It is less obvious when the same function is called
only to get the size/count and when real data.

I played with it and created extra function to get this information.

In addition, I had problems to follow the code in
record_print_text_inline(). So I tried to reuse the new function
and the existing record_printk_text() there.

Please, find below a patch that I ended with. I booted a system
with this patch. But I guess that I actually did not use the
record_print_text_inline(). So, it might be buggy.

Anyway, I wonder what you think about it: