[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8d16252d-d85d-284b-0235-f41d5d2166cf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 13:42:30 +0300
From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To: Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
Cc: linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Larry.Finger@...inger.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
straube.linux@...il.com, fmdefrancesco@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] staging: r8188eu: avoid uninit value bugs
On 8/21/21 2:12 AM, Phillip Potter wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 20:07 +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>> Hi, Greg, Larry and Phillip!
>>
>> I noticed, that new staging driver was added like 3 weeks ago and I
>> decided
>> to look at the code, because drivers in staging directory are always
>> buggy.
>>
>> The first thing I noticed is *no one* was checking read operations
>> result, but
>> it can fail and driver may start writing random stack values into
>> registers. It
>> can cause driver misbehavior or device misbehavior.
>>
>> To avoid this type of bugs, i've expanded read() API with error
>> parametr,
>> which will be initialized to error if read fails. It helps callers to
>> break/return earlier and don't write random values to registers or to
>> rely
>> on random values.
>>
>> Why is this pacth series RFC?
>> 1. I don't have this device and I cannot test these changes.
>> 2. I don't know how to handle errors in each particular case. For
>> now, function
>> just returns or returns an error. That's all. I hope, driver
>> maintainers will
>> help with these bits.
>> 3. I guess, I handled not all uninit value bugs here. I hope, I
>> fixed
>> at least half of them
>>
>> This series was build-tested and made on top of staging-testing
>> branch
>>
>>
>> With regards,
>> Pavel Skripkin
>>
>> Pavel Skripkin (3):
>> staging: r8188eu: add proper rtw_read* error handling
>> staging: r8188eu: add error handling to ReadFuse
>> staging: r8188eu: add error argument to read_macreg
>>
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_debug.c | 79 +++-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_efuse.c | 119 +++--
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_io.c | 18 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mp.c | 38 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mp_ioctl.c | 20 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_pwrctrl.c | 6 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_sreset.c | 7 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/HalPwrSeqCmd.c | 9 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/hal_com.c | 22 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/hal_intf.c | 6 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/odm_interface.c | 12 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c | 37 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_dm.c | 6 +-
>> .../staging/r8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_hal_init.c | 260 ++++++++---
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_phycfg.c | 26 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_sreset.c | 20 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/rtl8188eu_led.c | 17 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_halinit.c | 412 ++++++++++++++--
>> --
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_ops_linux.c | 55 ++-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/hal_intf.h | 6 +-
>> .../staging/r8188eu/include/rtl8188e_hal.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/rtw_efuse.h | 4 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/rtw_io.h | 18 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/rtw_mp.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/ioctl_linux.c | 168 +++++--
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/os_dep/usb_intf.c | 4 +-
>> 26 files changed, 1072 insertions(+), 301 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Dear Pavel,
>
> Firstly, thank you for this contribution, it is much appreciated.
> Whilst I'm still learning myself when it comes to this driver and to
> kernel code in general, I can certainly say the code looks pretty good
> in general so far. I will try and offer individual comments on each
> patch.
>
Thank you for your feedback. So, I will prepare a v2 version in few days
and, I think, I will leave RFC prefix.
Also, I want to receive some feedback from Larry about error handling in
each particular case, I guess, he can help us with it.
So, I will split each rtw_read* changes into separate patche and make
them return an error instead of read value.
Again, big thanks to you and Fabio for feedback, I appreciate it :)
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists