linux-kernel - 答复: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Fix potential NULL dereference

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: <5bbec145aa454874a8ae45091e26c3ca@meizu.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:12:16 +0000
From:   白浩文 <baihaowen@...zu.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:     "vireshk@...nel.org" <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        "johan@...nel.org" <johan@...nel.org>,
        "elder@...nel.org" <elder@...nel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: 答复: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Fix potential NULL dereference

Thank you for your suggestion.
________________________________________
发件人: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
发送时间: 2022年3月11日 19:32:08
收件人: 白浩文
抄送: vireshk@...nel.org; johan@...nel.org; elder@...nel.org; gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
主题: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Fix potential NULL dereference

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 04:35:30PM +0800, Haowen Bai wrote:
> Fix following coccicheck warning:
> drivers/staging/greybus/bootrom.c:301:35-39: ERROR: fw is NULL but dereferenced.
>
> When goto queue_work but dereference Uninitialized fw will trigger a NULL
> dereference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haowen Bai <baihaowen@...zu.com>

Your patch claims to fix a bug, but the warning is a false positive.
When we "goto queue_work;" then "ret = -EINVAL" so that means that we
will not dereference "fw".

You should ignore false positive warnings.

We would apply the patch only if it made the code more readable but I
do not think that is the case here.  I do not really even see how the
patch silences the false positive warning, but it may do...

Anyway, the point is:  False positive.  Ignore it.

regards,
dan carpenter