linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] staging: r8188eu: avoid uninit value bugs

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2244219.zNr1yEsLHP@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Sun, 22 Aug 2021 15:21:30 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk,
        straube.linux@...il.com, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] staging: r8188eu: avoid uninit value bugs

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 2:39:34 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 03:10:56PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> > On 8/22/21 1:59 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 12:09:29 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote:
[...]
> > > So, it's up to the callers to test if (!_rtw_read*()) and then act
> > > accordingly. If they get 0 they should know how to handle the errors.
> > 
> > Yes, but _rtw_read*() == 0 indicates 2 states:
> > 	1. Error on transfer side
> > 	2. Actual register value is 0
> 
> That's not a good design, it should be fixed.  Note there is the new
> usb_control_msg_recv() function which should probably be used instead
> here, to prevent this problem from happening.

I think that no functions should return 0 for signaling FAILURE. If I'm not 
wrong, the kernel quite always prefers to return 0 on SUCCESS and <0 on 
FAILURE. Why don't you just fix this?

> > > In summation. if anything should be changed, it is the code of the 
callers of
> > > _rtw_read*() if you find out they they don't properly handle the 
returning
> > > values of this function. You should find every place where _rtw_read*() 
are
> > > called and figure out if the returns are properly checked and handled; 
if not,
> > > make some change only there.
> > > 
> > > Larry, Philip, where are you? Am I missing something?
> 
> Relax, there is no need to get jumpy, people do not have to respond
> instantly to emails here.  Especially when it is not their job to do so.

I should have placed a big smile at the end of the phrase. I was just kidding 
while trying to get their attention. I know there is no hurry and that no one 
has any obligation of this kind. Again, just kidding :)

Thanks,

Fabio

> greg k-h