linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 21/74] scsi: zfcp: fix GCC compiler warning emitted with -Wmaybe-uninitialized

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: <20190805124937.489556604@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon,  5 Aug 2019 15:02:34 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Benjamin Block <bblock@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 21/74] scsi: zfcp: fix GCC compiler warning emitted with -Wmaybe-uninitialized

[ Upstream commit 484647088826f2f651acbda6bcf9536b8a466703 ]

GCC v9 emits this warning:
      CC      drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.o
    drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c: In function 'zfcp_erp_action_enqueue':
    drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c:217:26: warning: 'erp_action' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
      217 |  struct zfcp_erp_action *erp_action;
          |                          ^~~~~~~~~~

This is a possible false positive case, as also documented in the GCC
documentations:
    https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wmaybe-uninitialized

The actual code-sequence is like this:
    Various callers can invoke the function below with the argument "want"
    being one of:
    ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_ADAPTER,
    ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_PORT_FORCED,
    ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_PORT, or
    ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_LUN.

    zfcp_erp_action_enqueue(want, ...)
        ...
        need = zfcp_erp_required_act(want, ...)
            need = want
            ...
            maybe: need = ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_PORT
            maybe: need = ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_ADAPTER
            ...
            return need
        ...
        zfcp_erp_setup_act(need, ...)
            struct zfcp_erp_action *erp_action; // <== line 217
            ...
            switch(need) {
            case ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_LUN:
                    ...
                    erp_action = &zfcp_sdev->erp_action;
                    WARN_ON_ONCE(erp_action->port != port); // <== access
                    ...
                    break;
            case ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_PORT:
            case ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_PORT_FORCED:
                    ...
                    erp_action = &port->erp_action;
                    WARN_ON_ONCE(erp_action->port != port); // <== access
                    ...
                    break;
            case ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_ADAPTER:
                    ...
                    erp_action = &adapter->erp_action;
                    WARN_ON_ONCE(erp_action->port != NULL); // <== access
                    ...
                    break;
            }
            ...
            WARN_ON_ONCE(erp_action->adapter != adapter); // <== access

When zfcp_erp_setup_act() is called, 'need' will never be anything else
than one of the 4 possible enumeration-names that are used in the
switch-case, and 'erp_action' is initialized for every one of them, before
it is used. Thus the warning is a false positive, as documented.

We introduce the extra if{} in the beginning to create an extra code-flow,
so the compiler can be convinced that the switch-case will never see any
other value.

BUG_ON()/BUG() is intentionally not used to not crash anything, should
this ever happen anyway - right now it's impossible, as argued above; and
it doesn't introduce a 'default:' switch-case to retain warnings should
'enum zfcp_erp_act_type' ever be extended and no explicit case be
introduced. See also v5.0 commit 399b6c8bc9f7 ("scsi: zfcp: drop old
default switch case which might paper over missing case").

Signed-off-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@...ux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Jens Remus <jremus@...ux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c
index ebdbc457003fe..332701db7379d 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_erp.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
 #define pr_fmt(fmt) KMSG_COMPONENT ": " fmt
 
 #include <linux/kthread.h>
+#include <linux/bug.h>
 #include "zfcp_ext.h"
 #include "zfcp_reqlist.h"
 
@@ -238,6 +239,12 @@ static struct zfcp_erp_action *zfcp_erp_setup_act(int need, u32 act_status,
 	struct zfcp_erp_action *erp_action;
 	struct zfcp_scsi_dev *zfcp_sdev;
 
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(need != ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_LUN &&
+			 need != ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_PORT &&
+			 need != ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_PORT_FORCED &&
+			 need != ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_ADAPTER))
+		return NULL;
+
 	switch (need) {
 	case ZFCP_ERP_ACTION_REOPEN_LUN:
 		zfcp_sdev = sdev_to_zfcp(sdev);
-- 
2.20.1