[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXPYbCFsu0zoTafgc3atHvK1TAx=S_NTkfb0UNtKwuZOZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:44:41 -0700
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To: Li Tuo <islituo@...il.com>
Cc: amit karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@...il.com>,
Sharvari Harisangam <sharvari.harisangam@....com>,
Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
baijiaju1990@...il.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] mwifiex: possible null-pointer dereference in mwifiex_dnld_cmd_to_fw()
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 9:13 PM Li Tuo <islituo@...il.com> wrote:
> Our static analysis tool finds a possible null-pointer dereference in
> the mwifiex driver in Linux 5.14.0-rc3:
Wouldn't be the first time a static analysis tool tripped up over
excessively redundant "safety" checks :)
For example:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20210731163546.10753-1-len.baker@gmx.com/T/#u
> The variable cmd_node->cmd_skb->data is assigned to the variable
> host_cmd, and host_cmd is checked in:
> 190: if (host_cmd == NULL || host_cmd->size == 0)
>
> This indicates that host_cmd can be NULL.
> If so, the function mwifiex_recycle_cmd_node() will be called with the
> argument cmd_node:
> 196: mwifiex_recycle_cmd_node(adapter, cmd_node);
>
> In this called function, the variable cmd_node->cmd_skb->data is
> assigned to the variable host_cmd, too.
> Thus the variable host_cmd in the function mwifiex_recycle_cmd_node()
> can be also NULL.
> However, it is dereferenced when calling le16_to_cpu():
> 144: le16_to_cpu(host_cmd->command)
>
> I am not quite sure whether this possible null-pointer dereference is
> real and how to fix it if it is real.
> Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks!
I doubt it's real; the NULL check is probably excessive. I don't think
there's any case in which such skb's will have no ->data. If you're
interested, you could test and submit a "fix" to drop the excess
check.
Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists