netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/smc: Fix preinitialization of buf_desc in __smc_buf

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3wfVpabQHOOpZ-XCqkar+U49rT=MHGrMdEQiVw+KdNHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:35:12 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/smc: Fix preinitialization of buf_desc in __smc_buf_create()

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> With gcc-4.1.2:
>
>     net/smc/smc_core.c: In function ‘__smc_buf_create’:
>     net/smc/smc_core.c:567: warning: ‘bufsize’ may be used uninitialized in this function
>
> Indeed, if the for-loop is never executed, bufsize is used
> uninitialized.  In addition, buf_desc is stored for later use, while it
> is still a NULL pointer.
>
> Before, error handling was done by checking if buf_desc is non-NULL.
> The cleanup changed this to an error check, but forgot to update the
> preinitialization of buf_desc to an error pointer.
>
> Update the preinitializatin of buf_desc to fix this.
>
> Fixes: b33982c3a6838d13 ("net/smc: cleanup function __smc_buf_create()")
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> ---
> I don't know if this can ever happen, but the old code handled it.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

This one I could reproduce with gcc-4.1 on x86, but not gcc-4.2 or higher.