linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: rtl8188eu: fix usage of uninit scalar in rtw_drv

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 17 May 2014 22:24:50 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Christian Engelmayer <cengelma@....at>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com,
	Larry.Finger@...inger.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: rtl8188eu: fix usage of uninit scalar in
 rtw_drv_init()

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 08:56:35PM +0200, Christian Engelmayer wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:44:23 +0300, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:38:57PM +0200, Christian Engelmayer wrote:
> > > Function rtw_drv_init() is written in a way that assumes 'status' != _SUCCESS
> > > as long as not explicitly set. Thus initialize 'status' to FAIL, in order to
> > > prevent undefined behaviour if going through the exit paths. Detected by
> > > Coverity - CID 1077832.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Engelmayer <cengelma@....at>
> > 
> > This is a bugfix and we like to merge bugfixes without asking redo
> > things, so don't redo.  But really the better fix is to get rid of the
> > status variable completely.  Just return directly on the success path.
> > 
> > If we were to do that, then both patches would be merged together and
> > called:  [patch] Staging: rtl8188eu: fix error handling in rtw_drv_init()
> > 
> > But this patch is also acceptable as-is.  Thanks for fixing the bug.  :)
> 
> I agree with You Dan. I'm no big fan of that status variable either. In this
> case I was already tempted, but saw it as a recurring pattern in that file
> in case cleanup is done. So I decided to just attack the bug in a small change
> and leave the cleanup of the error handling pattern for a later, consistent
> sweep over the whole file if that's wanted.

It's a mistake to try be consistent with the crap code in the rest of
this file.  ;)  Next time just fix it so at least a couple lines in here
are not terrible.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/