linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pNFS: fix uninitialized pointer access

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: <gveqi6a4a7zt2v3iytoold5y2fevhzm5vaokelfpwkdzbiuwed@edr7ruel66ga>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:50:36 +0300
From: Sergey Bashirov <sergeybashirov@...il.com>
To: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...delbit.com>, 
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...nel.org>, Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, 
	Konstantin Evtushenko <koevtushenko@...dex.com>, Sergey Bashirov <sergeybashirov@...il.com>, 
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pNFS: fix uninitialized pointer access

Hi Antonio, Dan,

I have an idea how to refactor the code a little to make the static
analyzer happy. Will send a patch soon, but first I want to check
that it won't affect functionality.

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:01:42AM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On 17/07/2025 06:56, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > No, it won't.  I feel like the code is confusing enough that maybe a
> > comment is warranted.  /* We always iterate through the loop at least
> > once so be_prev is correct. */
> >
>
> I agree a comment would help.

I see, will add a comment.

> > Another option would be to initialize the be_prev to NULL.  This will
> > silence the uninitialized variable warning.
>
> But will likely trigger a potential NULL-ptr-deref, because the static
> analyzer believes we can get there with count==0.

I agree, this will most likely result in another warning.

--
Sergey Bashirov