[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] cryptodev: fix NULL pointer dereference

[Thomas Monjalon]

01/08/2017 10:13, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy:
> On 31/07/2017 20:33, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 31/07/2017 11:18, Pablo de Lara:
> >> When register a crypto driver, a cryptodev driver
> >> structure was being allocated, using malloc.
> >> Since this call may fail, it is safer to allocate
> >> this memory statically in each PMD, so driver registration
> >> will never fail.
> >>
> >> Coverity issue: 158645
> >>
> >> Fixes: 7a364faef185 ("cryptodev: remove crypto device type enumeration")
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Changes in v2:
> >>
> >> - Allocate statically the cryptodev driver structure,
> >>    instead of using malloc, that can potentially fail.
> >>
> >>   drivers/crypto/aesni_gcm/aesni_gcm_pmd.c    |  5 ++++-
> >>   drivers/crypto/aesni_mb/rte_aesni_mb_pmd.c  |  6 +++++-
> >>   drivers/crypto/armv8/rte_armv8_pmd.c        |  9 ++++++---
> >>   drivers/crypto/dpaa2_sec/dpaa2_sec_dpseci.c |  5 ++++-
> >>   drivers/crypto/kasumi/rte_kasumi_pmd.c      |  5 ++++-
> >>   drivers/crypto/null/null_crypto_pmd.c       |  5 ++++-
> >>   drivers/crypto/openssl/rte_openssl_pmd.c    |  5 ++++-
> >>   drivers/crypto/qat/rte_qat_cryptodev.c      |  7 +++++--
> >>   drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_pmd.c    |  5 ++++-
> >>   drivers/crypto/snow3g/rte_snow3g_pmd.c      |  5 ++++-
> >>   drivers/crypto/zuc/rte_zuc_pmd.c            |  5 ++++-
> >>   lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c        | 18 +++++------------
> >>   lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h        | 20 -------------------
> >>   lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h    | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   14 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> > This is a big change for a small/unlikely issue.
> > The main benefit of this patch is an allocation cleanup.
> > I think it is better to wait 17.11 cycle to integrate it.
> 
> We initially thought of exit given that it is a constructor and if you 
> fail to allocate memory at this stage, things are likely not going to 
> work out anyway.

You don't know how the application wants to manage it.

> The patch is an API change, do we really want to break again (we are 
> breaking in this release) next release?

Good question. Any opinions?