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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:31:52 +0000
From:   Colin Ian King <>
To:     Can Guo <>
Cc:     "James E.J. Bottomley" <>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: re: scsi: ufs: Serialize eh_work with system PM events and async scan


Static analysis on linux-next with Coverity had found a potential null
pointer dereference issue in the following commit:

commit 88a92d6ae4fe09b2b27781178c5c9432d27b1ffb
Author: Can Guo <>
Date:   Wed Dec 2 04:04:01 2020 -0800

    scsi: ufs: Serialize eh_work with system PM events and async scan

The analysis by Coverity is as follows:

8929 int ufshcd_system_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba)
8930 {
8931        int ret = 0;
8932        ktime_t start = ktime_get();
    deref_ptr_in_call: Dereferencing pointer hba.

8934        down(&hba->eh_sem);

    Dereference before null check (REVERSE_INULL)

check_after_deref: Null-checking hba suggests that it may be null, but
it has already been dereferenced on all paths leading to the check.

8935        if (!hba || !hba->is_powered)
8936                return 0;

Seeing that the down lock has been added by the commit it suggests the
commit overlooks the fact that hba may potentially be null. Not sure if
hba can be null, so I'm not sure if this is a real bug or a false positive.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists