Re: Coverity: __do_sys_pidfd_send_signal(): UNINIT

From: Kees Cook
Date: Wed Feb 14 2024 - 13:52:07 EST


On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:18:01PM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:59:37PM -0800, coverity-bot wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by
> > Coverity from a scan of next-20240213 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:
> >
> > Sat Feb 10 22:37:25 2024 +0100
> > 3f643cd23510 ("pidfd: allow to override signal scope in pidfd_send_signal()")
> > Sat Feb 10 22:37:23 2024 +0100
> > 81b9d8ac0640 ("pidfd: change pidfd_send_signal() to respect PIDFD_THREAD")
> >
> > Coverity reported the following:
> >
> > *** CID 1583637: (UNINIT)
> > kernel/signal.c:3963 in __do_sys_pidfd_send_signal()
> > 3957 /* Only allow sending arbitrary signals to yourself. */
> > 3958 ret = -EPERM;
> > 3959 if ((task_pid(current) != pid) &&
> > 3960 (kinfo.si_code >= 0 || kinfo.si_code == SI_TKILL))
> > 3961 goto err;
> > 3962 } else {
> > vvv CID 1583637: (UNINIT)
> > vvv Using uninitialized value "type" when calling "prepare_kill_siginfo".
> > 3963 prepare_kill_siginfo(sig, &kinfo, type);
> > 3964 }
> > 3965
> > 3966 if (type == PIDTYPE_PGID)
> > 3967 ret = kill_pgrp_info(sig, &kinfo, pid);
> > 3968 else
> > kernel/signal.c:3966 in __do_sys_pidfd_send_signal()
> > 3960 (kinfo.si_code >= 0 || kinfo.si_code == SI_TKILL))
> > 3961 goto err;
> > 3962 } else {
> > 3963 prepare_kill_siginfo(sig, &kinfo, type);
> > 3964 }
> > 3965
> > vvv CID 1583637: (UNINIT)
> > vvv Using uninitialized value "type".
> > 3966 if (type == PIDTYPE_PGID)
> > 3967 ret = kill_pgrp_info(sig, &kinfo, pid);
> > 3968 else
> > 3969 ret = kill_pid_info_type(sig, &kinfo, pid, type);
> > 3970 err:
> > 3971 fdput(f);
> >
> > If this is a false positive, please let us know so we can mark it as
> > such, or teach the Coverity rules to be smarter. If not, please make
> > sure fixes get into linux-next. :) For patches fixing this, please
> > include these lines (but double-check the "Fixes" first):
>
> I think this is a false positive, we have:
>
> /* Enforce flags be set to 0 until we add an extension. */
> if (flags & ~PIDFD_SEND_SIGNAL_FLAGS)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> /* Ensure that only a single signal scope determining flag is set. */
> if (hweight32(flags & PIDFD_SEND_SIGNAL_FLAGS) > 1)
> return -EINVAL;

Ah yeah, coverity can't see through the hweight32 test. Sorry for the
noise!

--
Kees Cook