linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers:wireless: Fix a dereference before null check issue

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]

Message-ID: <6b60c17b9594b990ec883729d9893494a61f0689.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:40:38 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Paolo Perego <pperego@...e.de>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miri
 Korenblit <miriam.rachel.korenblit@...el.com>, Kalle Valo
 <kvalo@...nel.org>, Shaul Triebitz <shaul.triebitz@...el.com>, Emmanuel
 Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,  Yedidya Benshimol
 <yedidya.ben.shimol@...el.com>, Benjamin Berg <benjamin.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers:wireless: Fix a dereference before null check
 issue

On Thu, 2024-11-21 at 18:35 +0100, Paolo Perego wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 06:28:14PM GMT, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-11-21 at 18:02 +0100, Paolo Perego wrote:
> > > This patch fixes a dereference before null check issue discovered by 
> > > Coverity (CID 1601547)
> > > 
> > 
> > This was reported before by smatch too, and Emmanuel just made a patch
> > to simply remove the NULL checks, because the pointers are statically
> > known to be not NULL. So it's not really an issue other than
> > style/checkers/... anyway :)
> Oops, I'm so sorry this was already fixed. In Coverity dashboard the
> item seemed to be still open.

Oh it wasn't fixed yet, the patch isn't anywhere near the trees. But
it's also not very important, so I doubt we'll handle it urgently.

> Apart from that, did I followed the right steps? Was my submission good
> enough? (I'm new to kernel hacking and I'm still in the learning phase)
> 

Well, should've had the right subject prefix, as "wifi: iwlwifi:" but
other than that, I guess?

Arguably, you also shouldn't have had the = 0 in the code, since it got
unconditionally assigned anyway.

And, if you're going to continue looking at Coverity reports, I'd
suggest to dig a bit deeper. We're not here to fix reports from Coverity
after all, we should fix _bugs_, and tools will get things wrong :)

johannes