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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:08:08 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
	acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eeepc-laptop: remove possible use of uninitialized value

On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 00:53 +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> In store_sys_acpi, if count equals zero, or parse_arg()s sscanf call
> fails, 'value' remains possibly uninitialized. In that case 'value'
> shouldn't be used to produce the store_sys_acpi()s return value.
> 
> Only test the return value of set_acpi() if we can actually call it.
> Return rv otherwise.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
> index bd533c2..41f12ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
> @@ -279,10 +279,10 @@ static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm,
>  	int rv, value;
>  
>  	rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value);
> -	if (rv > 0)
> -		value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value);
> -	if (value < 0)
> -		return -EIO;
> +	if (rv > 0) {
> +		if (set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value) < 0)
> +			return -EIO;
> +	}
>  	return rv;
>  }
>  

The warning that this code (currently) generated triggered me to submit
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/1/150 , which uses a different approach to
get rid of it. I received no reactions so far. Here's that patch again:

------------>8------------
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Subject: [PATCH] eeepc-laptop: simplify parse_arg()

parse_arg() has three possible return values:
    -EINVAL if sscanf(), in short, fails;
    zero if "count" is zero; and
    "count" in all other cases

But "count" will never be zero. See, parse_arg() is called by the
various store functions. And the callchain of these functions starts
with sysfs_kf_write(). And that function checks for a zero "count". So
we can stop checking for a zero "count", drop the "count" argument
entirely, and transform parse_arg() into a function that returns zero on
success or a negative error. That, in turn, allows to make those store
functions just return "count" on success. The net effect is that the
code becomes a bit easier to understand.

A nice side effect is that this GCC warning is silenced too:
    drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c: In function ‘store_sys_acpi’:
    drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c:279:10: warning: ‘value’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
      int rv, value;

Which is, of course, the reason to have a look at parse_arg().

Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
---
 drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
index bd533c22be57..78515b850165 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
@@ -263,13 +263,11 @@ static int acpi_setter_handle(struct eeepc_laptop *eeepc, int cm,
 /*
  * Sys helpers
  */
-static int parse_arg(const char *buf, unsigned long count, int *val)
+static int parse_arg(const char *buf, int *val)
 {
-	if (!count)
-		return 0;
 	if (sscanf(buf, "%i", val) != 1)
 		return -EINVAL;
-	return count;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm,
@@ -278,12 +276,13 @@ static ssize_t store_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm,
 	struct eeepc_laptop *eeepc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 	int rv, value;
 
-	rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value);
-	if (rv > 0)
-		value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value);
+	rv = parse_arg(buf, &value);
+	if (rv < 0)
+		return rv;
+	value = set_acpi(eeepc, cm, value);
 	if (value < 0)
 		return -EIO;
-	return rv;
+	return count;
 }
 
 static ssize_t show_sys_acpi(struct device *dev, int cm, char *buf)
@@ -377,13 +376,13 @@ static ssize_t store_cpufv(struct device *dev,
 		return -EPERM;
 	if (get_cpufv(eeepc, &c))
 		return -ENODEV;
-	rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value);
+	rv = parse_arg(buf, &value);
 	if (rv < 0)
 		return rv;
-	if (!rv || value < 0 || value >= c.num)
+	if (value < 0 || value >= c.num)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	set_acpi(eeepc, CM_ASL_CPUFV, value);
-	return rv;
+	return count;
 }
 
 static ssize_t show_cpufv_disabled(struct device *dev,
@@ -402,7 +401,7 @@ static ssize_t store_cpufv_disabled(struct device *dev,
 	struct eeepc_laptop *eeepc = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
 	int rv, value;
 
-	rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value);
+	rv = parse_arg(buf, &value);
 	if (rv < 0)
 		return rv;
 
@@ -412,7 +411,7 @@ static ssize_t store_cpufv_disabled(struct device *dev,
 			pr_warn("cpufv enabled (not officially supported "
 				"on this model)\n");
 		eeepc->cpufv_disabled = false;
-		return rv;
+		return count;
 	case 1:
 		return -EPERM;
 	default:
@@ -1042,10 +1041,11 @@ static ssize_t store_sys_hwmon(void (*set)(int), const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
 	int rv, value;
 
-	rv = parse_arg(buf, count, &value);
-	if (rv > 0)
-		set(value);
-	return rv;
+	rv = parse_arg(buf, &value);
+	if (rv < 0)
+		return rv;
+	set(value);
+	return count;
 }
 
 static ssize_t show_sys_hwmon(int (*get)(void), char *buf)
-- 


Paul Bolle

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ