linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: smccc: Fix use of uninitialised results structure

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]

Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:48:42 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Vikram Sethi <vsethi@...dia.com>,
        Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: smccc: Fix use of uninitialised results
 structure

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 09:38:26AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 18:17:02 +0100,
> Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Commit 35727af2b15d ("irqchip/gicv3: Workaround for NVIDIA erratum
> > T241-FABRIC-4") moved the initialisation of the SoC version to
> > arm_smccc_version_init() but forgot to update the results structure
> > and it's usage.
> > 
> > Fix the use of the uninitialised results structure and update the
> > error strings.
> > 
> > Fixes: 35727af2b15d ("irqchip/gicv3: Workaround for NVIDIA erratum T241-FABRIC-4")
> > Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com>
> > Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Vikram Sethi <vsethi@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c b/drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c
> > index 890eb454599a..1990263fbba0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/smccc/soc_id.c
> > @@ -34,7 +34,6 @@ static struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
> >  
> >  static int __init smccc_soc_init(void)
> >  {
> > -	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> >  	int soc_id_rev, soc_id_version;
> >  	static char soc_id_str[20], soc_id_rev_str[12];
> >  	static char soc_id_jep106_id_str[12];
> > @@ -49,13 +48,13 @@ static int __init smccc_soc_init(void)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (soc_id_version < 0) {
> > -		pr_err("ARCH_SOC_ID(0) returned error: %lx\n", res.a0);
> > +		pr_err("Invalid SoC Version: %x\n", soc_id_version);
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	soc_id_rev = arm_smccc_get_soc_id_revision();
> >  	if (soc_id_rev < 0) {
> > -		pr_err("ARCH_SOC_ID(1) returned error: %lx\n", res.a0);
> > +		pr_err("Invalid SoC Revision: %x\n", soc_id_rev);
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> >  
> 
> Ah, indeed. Well caught. FWIW:
> 
> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> 
> Sudeep, I assume you'll take that one directly?
> 

Sure I will route it via (arm-)soc team.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep