linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] rtw89: avoid stringop-overflow warning

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: <6161bfc56d51413283915031e8d4d653@realtek.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 00:26:14 +0000
From:   Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
CC:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, DeanKu <ku920601@...ltek.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] rtw89: avoid stringop-overflow warning



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 3:30 PM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>; Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>; Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>; DeanKu <ku920601@...ltek.com>; linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] rtw89: avoid stringop-overflow warning

Subject prefix should be "wifi: rtw89: ..."

> 
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> After -Wstringop-overflow got enabled, the rtw89 driver produced
> two odd warnings with gcc-13:
> 
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c: In function 'rtw89_btc_ntfy_scan_start':
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c:5362:50: error: writing 1 byte into a region of size 0
> [-Werror=stringop-overflow=]
>  5362 |                 wl->dbcc_info.scan_band[phy_idx] = band;
>       |                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~
> In file included from drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.h:8,
>                  from drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c:5:
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.h:1441:12: note: at offset [64, 255] into destination object
> 'scan_band' of size 2
>  1441 |         u8 scan_band[RTW89_PHY_MAX]; /* scan band in  each phy */
>       |            ^~~~~~~~~
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c: In function 'rtw89_btc_ntfy_switch_band':
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/coex.c:5406:50: error: writing 1 byte into a region of size 0
> [-Werror=stringop-overflow=]
>  5406 |                 wl->dbcc_info.scan_band[phy_idx] = band;
>       |                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.h:1441:12: note: at offset [64, 255] into destination object
> 'scan_band' of size 2
>  1441 |         u8 scan_band[RTW89_PHY_MAX]; /* scan band in  each phy */
>       |            ^~~~~~~~~
> 
> I don't know what happened here, but adding an explicit range check
> shuts up the output.

The callers of these two cases will pass RTW89_PHY_0 (0) as argument of phy_idx,
and will extend to pass RTW89_PHY_1 (1) in the future, but should not be larger
than 1.

I don't mind to add this checking, but I really don't know what happened neither.
A statement 'wl->scan_info.band[phy_idx] = band;' did similar thing in the same
function, but why doesn't gcc complain this?