[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19076e6bec0.279b.9b12b7fc0a3841636cfb5e919b41b954@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 06:42:32 +0200
From: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
To: Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
CC: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, <johannes.berg@...el.com>, <kees@...nel.org>, <a@...repo.ru>, <marcan@...can.st>, <quic_alokad@...cinc.com>, <zyytlz.wz@....com>, <petr.tesarik.ext@...wei.com>, <duoming@....edu.cn>, <colin.i.king@...il.com>, <frankyl@...adcom.com>, <meuleman@...adcom.com>, <phaber@...adcom.com>, <linville@...driver.com>, <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, <brcm80211@...ts.linux.dev>, <brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless 1/9] wifi: cfg80211: avoid garbage value of 'io_type' in brcmf_cfg80211_attach()
On July 3, 2024 3:42:18 AM Su Hui <suhui@...china.com> wrote:
> On 2024/7/2 23:39, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>> On July 2, 2024 5:29:27 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On July 2, 2024 3:57:27 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 08:24:44PM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
>>>>>> brcmf_fil_cmd_int_get() reads the value of 'io_type' and passes it to
>>>>>> brcmf_fil_cmd_data_get(). Initialize 'io_type' to avoid garbage
>>>>>> value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you're going to be resending anyway, please delete the space
>>>>> char
>>>>> from the start of the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's weird that brcmf_fil_cmd_data_get() uses the uninitialized data.
>>>>> It looks like it just goes to great lengths to preserve the original
>>>>> data in io_type... So it likely is harmless enough but still a
>>>>> strange
>>>>> and complicated way write a no-op.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if it helps, but I tried to explain the reason in response to
>>>> patch 0 (cover letter).
>>>
>>> Would it make more sense to have just one patch? It's the same issue
>>> anyway.
>>
>> Yes, but I would solve it in brcmf_fil_* functions (fwil.[ch]).
> It seems you will send a new patch to solve this issue.
> And I guess there is no need for me to resend a v2 patchset or just one
> patch.
I am not entirely sure. If both gcc and clang would warn about using
uninitialized data I would be fine with these patches rolled into one.
Regards,
Arend
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4219 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists