kbuild: fix segmentation fault in recursive dependency check

PATCH In review Arnaud Lacombe 2 participants 3 messages Aug 23, 2010

Subsystems (2)

Kbuild Kconfig

lore

Share & tools

lore

Arnaud Lacombe

author

2010-08-23 16:05 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 kbuild: fix segmentation fault in recursive dependency check

#0 sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:950
950 fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d:error: recursive dependency detected!\n",
(gdb) bt

 #0  sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:950
 #1  0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5ec8e0) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
 #2  0x0804b549 in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1032
 #3  0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
 #4  0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5e99a0) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
 #5  0x0804b50f in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb904d30) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1024
 #6  0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904d30) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
 #7  0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5f1840) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
 #8  0x0804b4a8 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5f1830) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:994
 #9  0x0804b549 in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb970240) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1032

#10 0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb970240) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
#11 0x08052e37 in conf_parse (name=0x804a09a "\203�\020�\004z\005\b\205�\017\205�") at scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.c:2244 #12 0x0804a09a in main (ac=3, av=0xbfbfe004) at scripts/kconfig/conf.c:505

In this case, stack->prop' is NULL, but it may also end-up being NULL at the end of the loop just before. Places the check before using prop' to catch both cases.

This fix `scripts/kconfig/conf' segmentation fault on SH as of v2.6.36-rc2 and allow to fix the underlying issue.

Signed-off-by Arnaud Lacombe <[email protected]>

---
 scripts/kconfig/symbol.c |    7 +++++++
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

scripts/kconfig/symbol.c +7 -0

index e95718f..0968f15 100644
@@ -946,6 +946,13 @@ static void sym_check_print_recursive(struct symbol *last_sym)
 					break;
 			}
 		}
+
+		if (!prop) {
+			fprintf(stderr,
+			    "unexpected recursive dependency error\n");
+			return;
+		}
+
 		if (stack->sym == last_sym)
 			fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d:error: recursive dependency detected!\n",
 				prop->file->name, prop->lineno);

Signature · 1 line

1.7.2.30.gc37d7.dirty

Sam Ravnborg

2010-08-23 16:51 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 17 lines · Arnaud Lacombe

#0 sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:950
950 fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d:error: recursive dependency detected!\n",
(gdb) bt
 #0  sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:950
 #1  0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5ec8e0) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
 #2  0x0804b549 in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1032
 #3  0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
 #4  0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5e99a0) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
 #5  0x0804b50f in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb904d30) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1024
 #6  0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904d30) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
 #7  0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5f1840) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
 #8  0x0804b4a8 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5f1830) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:994
 #9  0x0804b549 in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb970240) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1032
#10 0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb970240) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
#11 0x08052e37 in conf_parse (name=0x804a09a "\203?\020?\004z\005\b\205?\017\205?") at scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.c:2244 #12 0x0804a09a in main (ac=3, av=0xbfbfe004) at scripts/kconfig/conf.c:505

Quoted 6 lines

In this case, stack->prop' is NULL, but it may also end-up being NULL at the end of the loop just before. Places the check before using prop' to catch both cases.
This fix `scripts/kconfig/conf' segmentation fault on SH as of v2.6.36-rc2 and allow to fix the underlying issue.

Looks like the bug I fixed in another way:
See: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mmarek/kbuild-2.6.git;a=commit;h=3643f849d7da5c12da589beb03c12303fe79b841

Or did you hit another bug so your patch is needed too?

Sam

Arnaud Lacombe

author

2010-08-23 17:02 UTC #2 lore raw

Hi,

Quoted 22 lines · Sam Ravnborg

Quoted 21 lines · Arnaud Lacombe
#0 sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:950
950 fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d:error: recursive dependency detected!\n", (gdb) bt
#0 sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:950
#1 0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5ec8e0) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
#2 0x0804b549 in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1032
#3 0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904c90) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
#4 0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5e99a0) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
#5 0x0804b50f in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb904d30) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1024
#6 0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb904d30) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
#7 0x0804b4c2 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5f1840) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1007
#8 0x0804b4a8 in sym_check_expr_deps (e=0xbb5f1830) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:994
#9 0x0804b549 in sym_check_sym_deps (sym=0xbb970240) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1032
#10 0x0804b950 in sym_check_deps (sym=0xbb970240) at scripts/kconfig/symbol.c:1111
#11 0x08052e37 in conf_parse (name=0x804a09a "\203?\020?\004z\005\b\205?\017\205?") at scripts/kconfig/zconf.tab.c:2244 #12 0x0804a09a in main (ac=3, av=0xbfbfe004) at scripts/kconfig/conf.c:505
In this case, stack->prop' is NULL, but it may also end-up being NULL at the end of the loop just before. Places the check before using prop' to catch both cases.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 2 lines
This fix `scripts/kconfig/conf' segmentation fault on SH as of v2.6.36-rc2 and allow to fix the underlying issue.
Looks like the bug I fixed in another way:
See: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mmarek/kbuild-2.6.git;a=commit;h=3643f849d7da5c12da589beb03c12303fe79b841
Or did you hit another bug so your patch is needed too?

definitively the same, sorry for the duplicate.

- Arnaud