linux-kernel - [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170503125818.Horde.8rEDF6U_fTKRV29evjbXFMa@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date:   Wed, 03 May 2017 12:58:18 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...ium.com,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@...il.com>
Subject: [scsi-qedf] question about parameter ordering


Hello everybody,

While looking into Coverity ID 1402011 I ran into the following piece  
of code at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_io.c:2057:

/* Fill FC header */
fc_hdr = &(tm_req->req_fc_hdr);
sid = fcport->sid;
did = fcport->rdata->ids.port_id;
__fc_fill_fc_hdr(fc_hdr, FC_RCTL_DD_UNSOL_CMD, sid, did,
                    FC_TYPE_FCP, FC_FC_FIRST_SEQ | FC_FC_END_SEQ |
                    FC_FC_SEQ_INIT, 0);

The issue here is that the position of arguments in the call to  
__fc_fill_fc_hdr() function do not match the ordering of the parameters:

_sid_ is passed to _did_
_did_ is passed to _sid_

this is the function prototype:

static inline void __fc_fill_fc_hdr(struct fc_frame_header *fh,
                                     enum fc_rctl r_ctl,
                                     u32 did, u32 sid, enum fc_fh_type type,
                                     u32 f_ctl, u32 parm_offset)

My question here is if this is intentional?

In case it is not, I will send a patch to fix it. But first it would  
be great to hear any comment about it.

By the way... the same is happening at drivers/scsi/qedf/qedf_els.c:109

Thank you
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva