netdev - Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Simplify / fix return values from tk

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]

Date:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:56:58 -0400
From:   Alain Michaud <alainmichaud@...gle.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        BlueZ <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sonny Sasaka <sonnysasaka@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Simplify / fix return values from tk_request

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:43 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On 4/3/20 8:13 AM, Alain Michaud wrote:
> > Hi Guenter/Marcel,
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:03 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some static checker run by 0day reports a variableScope warning.
> >>
> >> net/bluetooth/smp.c:870:6: warning:
> >>         The scope of the variable 'err' can be reduced. [variableScope]
> >>
> >> There is no need for two separate variables holding return values.
> >> Stick with the existing variable. While at it, don't pre-initialize
> >> 'ret' because it is set in each code path.
> >>
> >> tk_request() is supposed to return a negative error code on errors,
> >> not a bluetooth return code. The calling code converts the return
> >> value to SMP_UNSPECIFIED if needed.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 92516cd97fd4 ("Bluetooth: Always request for user confirmation for Just Works")
> >> Cc: Sonny Sasaka <sonnysasaka@...omium.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> >> ---
> >>  net/bluetooth/smp.c | 9 ++++-----
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/smp.c b/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> >> index d0b695ee49f6..30e8626dd553 100644
> >> --- a/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> >> +++ b/net/bluetooth/smp.c
> >> @@ -854,8 +854,7 @@ static int tk_request(struct l2cap_conn *conn, u8 remote_oob, u8 auth,
> >>         struct l2cap_chan *chan = conn->smp;
> >>         struct smp_chan *smp = chan->data;
> >>         u32 passkey = 0;
> >> -       int ret = 0;
> >> -       int err;
> >> +       int ret;
> >>
> >>         /* Initialize key for JUST WORKS */
> >>         memset(smp->tk, 0, sizeof(smp->tk));
> >> @@ -887,12 +886,12 @@ static int tk_request(struct l2cap_conn *conn, u8 remote_oob, u8 auth,
> >>         /* If Just Works, Continue with Zero TK and ask user-space for
> >>          * confirmation */
> >>         if (smp->method == JUST_WORKS) {
> >> -               err = mgmt_user_confirm_request(hcon->hdev, &hcon->dst,
> >> +               ret = mgmt_user_confirm_request(hcon->hdev, &hcon->dst,
> >>                                                 hcon->type,
> >>                                                 hcon->dst_type,
> >>                                                 passkey, 1);
> >> -               if (err)
> >> -                       return SMP_UNSPECIFIED;
> >> +               if (ret)
> >> +                       return ret;
> > I think there may be some miss match between expected types of error
> > codes here.  The SMP error code type seems to be expected throughout
> > this code base, so this change would propagate a potential negative
> > value while the rest of the SMP protocol expects strictly positive
> > error codes.
> >
>
> Up to the patch introducing the SMP_UNSPECIFIED return value, tk_request()
> returned negative error codes, and all callers convert it to SMP_UNSPECIFIED.
>
> If tk_request() is supposed to return SMP_UNSPECIFIED on error, it should
> be returned consistently, and its callers don't have to convert it again.
Agreed, the conventions aren't clear here.  I'll differ to Marcel to
provide guidance in this case where as a long term solution might
increase the scope of this patch beyond what would be reasonable.
>
> Guenter
>
> >>                 set_bit(SMP_FLAG_WAIT_USER, &smp->flags);
> >>                 return 0;
> >>         }
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alain
> >
>