linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][spi-next] spi: stm32: fix range limit checks on div

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, 22 Jun 2017 16:50:50 +0100
From:   Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:     Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@...com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][spi-next] spi: stm32: fix range limit checks on div

On 22/06/17 16:49, Amelie DELAUNAY wrote:
> Hi Colin,
> 
> I'm preparing a v2 for the initial patchset introducing spi-stm32, if
> you agree, I can directly add your fix.

Yep, please do, sounds like a plan.

Colin
> 
> Regards,
> Amelie
> 
> On 06/22/2017 05:41 PM, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> Currently the check for range limits on div is incorrect and will
>> never return -EINVAL. Fix this by replacing && with ||
>>
>> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1446580 ("Structurally dead code")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/spi/spi-stm32.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-stm32.c b/drivers/spi/spi-stm32.c
>> index 0553f61ab3b7..b75909e7b117 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-stm32.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-stm32.c
>> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static int stm32_spi_prepare_mbr(struct stm32_spi
>> *spi, u32 speed_hz)
>>        * no need to check it there.
>>        * However, we need to ensure the following calculations.
>>        */
>> -    if ((div < SPI_MBR_DIV_MIN) &&
>> +    if ((div < SPI_MBR_DIV_MIN) ||
>>           (div > SPI_MBR_DIV_MAX))
>>           return -EINVAL;
>>