linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] saa7134: fix incorrect check to determine if no element is found in list

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sun, 20 Mar 2022 07:12:33 +0100
From:   Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
To:     Xiaomeng Tong <xiam0nd.tong@...il.com>
Cc:     mchehab@...nel.org, hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl,
        yangyingliang@...wei.com, akpm@...l.org, v4l@...queira.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] saa7134: fix incorrect check to determine if no element
 is found in list



> On 20. Mar 2022, at 03:57, Xiaomeng Tong <xiam0nd.tong@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> The bug is here: "if (dev == NULL)".
> 
> The list iterator value will *always* be set and non-NULL by
> list_for_each_entry(), so it is incorrect to assume that the iterator
> value will be NULL if the list is empty or no element is found in list.
> 
> Use a new value 'iter' as the list iterator, while use the old value
> 'req' as a dedicated pointer to point to the found element, which
> 1. can fix this bug, due to now 'req' is NULL only if it's not found.
> 2. do not need to change all the uses of 'req' after the loop.
> 3. can also limit the scope of the list iterator 'iter' *only inside*
>   the traversal loop by simply declaring 'iter' inside the loop in the
>   future, as usage of the iterator outside of the list_for_each_entry
>   is considered harmful. https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/2/17/1032
> 
> Fixes: 4aabf6331f89c ("[PATCH] v4l: (951) Make saa7134-oss as a stand-alone module")
> Signed-off-by: Xiaomeng Tong <xiam0nd.tong@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/media/pci/saa7134/saa7134-alsa.c | 11 +++++++----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/saa7134/saa7134-alsa.c b/drivers/media/pci/saa7134/saa7134-alsa.c
> index fb24d2ed3621..4955f7e7c5bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/pci/saa7134/saa7134-alsa.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/pci/saa7134/saa7134-alsa.c
> @@ -1215,18 +1215,21 @@ static int alsa_device_exit(struct saa7134_dev *dev)
> static int saa7134_alsa_init(void)
> {
> 	struct saa7134_dev *dev = NULL;
> +	struct saa7134_dev *iter;
> 
> 	saa7134_dmasound_init = alsa_device_init;
> 	saa7134_dmasound_exit = alsa_device_exit;
> 
> 	pr_info("saa7134 ALSA driver for DMA sound loaded\n");
> 
> -	list_for_each_entry(dev, &saa7134_devlist, devlist) {
> -		if (dev->pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_PHILIPS_SAA7130)
> +	list_for_each_entry(iter, &saa7134_devlist, devlist) {
> +		dev = iter;
> +
> +		if (iter->pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_PHILIPS_SAA7130)
> 			pr_info("%s/alsa: %s doesn't support digital audio\n",
> -				dev->name, saa7134_boards[dev->board].name);
> +				iter->name, saa7134_boards[iter->board].name);
> 		else
> -			alsa_device_init(dev);
> +			alsa_device_init(iter);
> 	}
> 
> 	if (dev == NULL)

I could be wrong, but judging from the printed message "saa7134 ALSA: no saa7134 cards found"
and how the code is structured, I got the impression that the intention for this code was
to only execute if the list is empty. 

There is no break or anything so it's not looking for a specific element.

It might make more sense to simply replace this check with:
	if (list_empty(&saa7134_devlist))

> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 

	Jakob