[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKb7UvhTPfJhbp+h_y_C8KJa19syZX+rVN0F9S_Lkqkzc+fDoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 14:06:02 -0400
From: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@...m.mit.edu>
To: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: usif_ioctl: ensure returns are initialized
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com> wrote:
> On 1 July 2015 at 18:37, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/07/15 18:12, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>> On 1 July 2015 at 17:56, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Various usif_ioctl helper functions do not initialize the
>>>>>> return variable ret and some of the error handling return
>>>>>> paths just return garbage values that were on the stack (or
>>>>>> in a register). I believe that in all the cases, the
>>>>>> initial ret variable should be set to -EINVAL and subsequent
>>>>>> paths through these helper functions set it appropriately
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Found via static analysis using cppcheck:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_usif.c:138]:
>>>>>> (error) Uninitialized variable: ret
>>>>>
>>>>> It sure would seem that way, wouldn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> #define nvif_unpack(d,vl,vh,m) ({ \
>>>>> if ((vl) == 0 || ret == -ENOSYS) { \
>>>>> int _size = sizeof(d); \
>>>>> if (_size <= size && (d).version >= (vl) && \
>>>>> (d).version <= (vh)) { \
>>>>> data = (u8 *)data + _size; \
>>>>> size = size - _size; \
>>>>> ret = ((m) || !size) ? 0 : -E2BIG; \
>>>>> } else { \
>>>>> ret = -ENOSYS; \
>>>>> } \
>>>>> } \
>>>>> (ret == 0); \
>>>>> })
>>>>>
>>>>> So actually it does get initialized, and I guess cppcheck doesn't know
>>>>> about macros?
>>>
>>> Hrm, what about the case when ((vl) == 0 || ret == -ENOSYS) is false,
>>> where is ret being set in that case?
>>
>> Is that actually the case for any of the callsites? gcc would complain
>> about that...
> There is one:
>
> drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/disp/nv50.c: if (nvif_unpack(args->v1, 1, 1, true))
>
> Seems like a recent addition though, I don't recall it with back when
> was introduced.
It follows a call to nvif_unpack(0) though, which will initialize ret.
--
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