linux-kernel - Re: [patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable

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]

Message-ID: <20160414195126.GF7821@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU>
Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:51:26 -0400
From:	"Gabriel L. Somlo" <somlo@....edu>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> It acpi_acquire_global_lock() return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED then "glk" isn't
> initialized, which, if you got very unlucky, could cause a bug.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> index d999fe3..0e20116 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static inline u16 fw_cfg_sel_endianness(u16 key)
>  static inline void fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
>  				    void *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
>  {
> -	u32 glk;
> +	u32 glk = -1U;

After digging through the acpi_[acquire|release]_global_lock() code in
drivers/acpi/acpica/evxface.c, the -1 value actually makes sense, as
glk is set to the value of acpi_gbl_global_lock_handle, which
internally is a 16-bit value which can wrap around, but will never be
equal to 32-bit "-1". As such, the unlock function would fail with
AE_NOT_ACQUIRED if its "for-real" version ever ended up being called.

So, with the typos in the commit blurb fixed (s/It/If/ and
s/return/returns/), and on general "belt-and-suspenders" principle,

Reviewed-by: Gabriel Somlo <somlo@....edu>

I just wanted to make sure my understanding of "this can't happen with
the way the ACPI macros are currently defined" is still correct :)

Thanks,
--Gabe

>  	acpi_status status;
>  
>  	/* If we have ACPI, ensure mutual exclusion against any potential