netdev - Re: Bluetooth: Add framework for device found filtering based on UUID

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVTciynVTaqm43U_WOzc2j5dJYwDVyKqF0p9AM4n=SdSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:37:59 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:	Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bluetooth: Add framework for device found filtering based on UUID

Hi Marcel,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> wrote:
>>> --- a/net/bluetooth/mgmt.c
>>> +++ b/net/bluetooth/mgmt.c
>>> @@ -6809,6 +6814,7 @@ void mgmt_device_found(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr, u8 link_type,
>>>        char buf[512];
>>>        struct mgmt_ev_device_found *ev = (void *) buf;
>>>        size_t ev_size;
>>> +       bool match;
>>
>> net/bluetooth/mgmt.c: In function ‘mgmt_device_found’:
>> net/bluetooth/mgmt.c:6993: warning: ‘match’ may be used uninitialized
>> in this function
>
> I did not get this warning, but I did consider it happening and my conclusion was that it will not and thus no need for initializing this to false.

It's highly compiler-dependent, and it's the reason I'll stick to gcc
4.1.2 as long it
helps me finding several real issues during each merge window.

>> All tests for "match" are protected by "if (hdev->discovery.uuid_count > 0)",
>> so we only have to care about that case.
>>
>>>        /* Don't send events for a non-kernel initiated discovery. With
>>>         * LE one exception is if we have pend_le_reports > 0 in which
>>> @@ -6843,15 +6849,59 @@ void mgmt_device_found(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr, u8 link_type,
>>>        ev->rssi = rssi;
>>>        ev->flags = cpu_to_le32(flags);
>>>
>>> -       if (eir_len > 0)
>>> +       if (eir_len > 0) {
>>> +               /* When using service discovery and a list of UUID is
>>> +                * provided, results with no matching UUID should be
>>> +                * dropped. In case there is a match the result is
>>> +                * kept and checking possible scan response data
>>> +                * will be skipped.
>>> +                */
>>> +               if (hdev->discovery.uuid_count > 0) {
>>> +                       match = eir_has_uuids(eir, eir_len,
>>> +                                             hdev->discovery.uuid_count,
>>> +                                             hdev->discovery.uuids);
>>> +                       if (!match)
>>> +                               return;
>>> +               }
>>
>> If we get here and if (hdev->discovery.uuid_count > 0), "match" must be true.
>
> We need to keep the match state to optimize the later branch. There is no point in running through the second list if the first one already has a match.
>
> Actually this is the bogus one here. The only valid reason to leave here is when also !scan_rsp_len.

OK.

>> Is my analysis correct?
>> Am I missing something?
>
> Your analysis seems correct and even while putting in tons of comments, my brain still messed it up.
>
> I looked at the whole code again and this is would should make all statements work correctly.
>
> @@ -7085,7 +7085,7 @@ void mgmt_device_found(struct hci_dev *hdev, bdaddr_t *bdaddr, u8 link_type,
>                         match = eir_has_uuids(eir, eir_len,
>                                               hdev->discovery.uuid_count,
>                                               hdev->discovery.uuids);
> -                       if (!match)
> +                       if (!match && !scan_rsp_len)
>                                 return;
>                 }

Thanks, that indeed changes all further checks for match to make sense.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html