[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <iu252dgt2sgg25fkuyl66r6scs5ln3fud644ept2dvtgfm2i77@6gwx3glxihja>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:40:41 +0530
From: Brahmajit <brahmajit.xyz@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, johannes.berg@...el.com
ilan.peer@...el.com, miriam.rachel.korenblit@...el.com
Bcc:
Subject: Possible Null pointer dereferences in net/mac80211/parse.c
Message-ID: <auwvcgrqt34qe277qkizbyhy3oji7h3axvstnhrqbriwtltxyd@...gx2cwlg2x>
Reply-To:
Coverity Scan reports that there might be a possible NULL pointer
dereferences in net/mac80211/parse.c: 1061 in
ieee802_11_parse_elems_full(). I understand that these reports are not
always correct.
I'm not sure whether the syntax
struct ieee80211_elems_parse_params sub = {};
is correct or falls under C11 standard[0].
initializer:
assignment-expression
{ initializer-list }
{ initializer-list , }
initializer-list:
designation(opt) initializer
initializer-list , designation(opt) initializer
I'm aware that C23 allows empty initialization[1].
braced-initializer:
{ }
{ initializer-list }
{ initializer-list , }
Considering [0], if we do something like
--- a/net/mac80211/parse.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/parse.c
@@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ ieee80211_mle_defrag_epcs(struct ieee80211_elems_parse *elems_parse)
struct ieee802_11_elems *
ieee802_11_parse_elems_full(struct ieee80211_elems_parse_params *params)
{
- struct ieee80211_elems_parse_params sub = {};
+ struct ieee80211_elems_parse_params sub = { 0 };
struct ieee80211_elems_parse *elems_parse;
const struct element *non_inherit = NULL;
struct ieee802_11_elems *elems;
Would it be incorrect? Would appreciate some feedback.
[0]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf
[1]: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3054.pdf
--
Regards,
Brahmajit
Powered by blists - more mailing lists