linux-kernel - Re: iwlwifi: refactor the SAR tables from mvm to acpi

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: <21328530d3f15c75abca8107823a4578e5065ca6.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:40:44 +0200
From:   Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
        Intel Linux Wireless <linuxwifi@...el.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ihab Zhaika <ihab.zhaika@...el.com>,
        Shahar S Matityahu <shahar.s.matityahu@...el.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: iwlwifi: refactor the SAR tables from mvm to acpi

On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 00:02 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Static analysis with Coverity has detected a potential issue with the
> following commit:
> 
> commit 39c1a9728f938c7255ce507c8d56b73e8a4ebddf
> Author: Ihab Zhaika <ihab.zhaika@...el.com>
> Date:   Fri Nov 15 09:28:11 2019 +0200
> 
>     iwlwifi: refactor the SAR tables from mvm to acpi
> 
> 
> in function iwl_sar_get_ewrd_table() we have an array index pos being
> initialized to 3 and then incremented each time a loop iterates:
> 
>         for (i = 0; i < n_profiles; i++) {
>                 /* the tables start at element 3 */
>                 int pos = 3;
> 
>                 /* The EWRD profiles officially go from 2 to 4, but we
>                  * save them in sar_profiles[1-3] (because we don't
>                  * have profile 0).  So in the array we start from 1.
>                  */
>                 ret = iwl_sar_set_profile(&wifi_pkg->package.elements[pos],
>                                           &fwrt->sar_profiles[i + 1],
>                                           enabled);
>                 if (ret < 0)
>                         break;
> 
>                 /* go to the next table */
>                 pos += ACPI_SAR_TABLE_SIZE;
>         }
> 
> So, each iteration is always accessing package.elements[3]. I'm not sure
> if that is intentional. If it is, then the increment of pos is not
> required.  Either way, it's not clear what the original intention is.

Good catch, thanks! We'll fix it.

--
Cheers,
Luca.