linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 net] ice: Fix freeing uninitialized pointers

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: <f292facc-8a22-42e1-9a41-5ec8bd665cb7@moroto.mountain>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 13:43:12 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, smatch@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Lukasz Czapnik <lukasz.czapnik@...el.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Pucha Himasekhar Reddy <himasekharx.reddy.pucha@...el.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] ice: Fix freeing uninitialized pointers

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 05:56:29PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Automatically cleaned up pointers need to be initialized before exiting
> > their scope.  In this case, they need to be initialized to NULL before
> > any return statement.
> 
> * May we expect that compilers should report that affected variables
>   were only declared here instead of appropriately defined
>   (despite of attempts for scope-based resource management)?
> 

We disabled GCC's check for uninitialized variables a long time ago
because it had too many false positives.

> * Did you extend detection support in the source code analysis tool “Smatch”
>   for a questionable implementation detail?

Yes.  Smatch detects this as an uninitialized variable.

regards,
dan carpenter