linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: v4l: cadence: Fix how unsued lanes are handled in 'csi2rx

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190917070613.GA2959@kadam>
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:06:13 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, mchehab@...nel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: v4l: cadence: Fix how unsued lanes are handled in
 'csi2rx_start()'

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 09:24:26PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 16/09/2019 à 08:28, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 09:57:09AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > Hi Christophe,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:44:50PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > > The 2nd parameter of 'find_first_zero_bit()' is a number of bits, not of
> > > > bytes. So use 'BITS_PER_LONG' instead of 'sizeof(lanes_used)'.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 1fc3b37f34f6 ("media: v4l: cadence: Add Cadence MIPI-CSI2 RX driver")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
> > > > ---
> > > > This patch is purely speculative. Using BITS_PER_LONG looks logical to me,
> > > > but I'm not 100% sure that it is what is expected here. 'csi2rx->max_lanes'
> > > > could also be a good candidate.
> > > Yeah, csi2rx->max_lanes would make more sense in that context. Could
> > > you resend a new version?
> > This is sort of unrelated, but for Smatch purposes the csi2rx->max_lanes
> > comes from the firmware in csi2rx_parse_dt() and it could be any u8
> > value.
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> not sure to follow you.
> 
> csi2rx_probe()
>   --> csi2rx_get_resources()
>      -->  ...
>           dev_cfg = readl(csi2rx->base + CSI2RX_DEVICE_CFG_REG);
>           ...
>           csi2rx->max_lanes = dev_cfg & 7;
>           if (csi2rx->max_lanes > CSI2RX_LANES_MAX) {
>              dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid number of lanes: %u\n",
>                      csi2rx->max_lanes);
>              return -EINVAL;
>           }
> 
> So I guess, that we can trust max_lanes because of the 'if (... >
> CSI2RX_LANES_MAX)' check.
> 
> Did I miss something?

Ugh...  I was looking at ->num_lanes and I was also just totally wrong.
Smatch parses that badly.  Smatch actually parses ->max_lanes correctly
though so that's ok.

Sorry for the noise on this.

regards,
dan carpenter