netdev - Re: [PATCH 03/10] b43: Remove uninitialized

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]

Date:   Thu, 4 Jun 2020 13:08:44 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] b43: Remove uninitialized_var() usage

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:32 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Using uninitialized_var() is dangerous as it papers over real bugs[1]
> (or can in the future), and suppresses unrelated compiler warnings (e.g.
> "unused variable"). If the compiler thinks it is uninitialized, either
> simply initialize the variable or make compiler changes. As a precursor
> to removing[2] this[3] macro[4], just initialize this variable to NULL,
> and make the (unreachable!) code do a conditional test.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200603174714.192027-1-glider@google.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFw+Vbj0i=1TGqCR5vQkCzWJ0QxK6CernOU6eedsudAixw@mail.gmail.com/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwgbgqhbp1fkxvRKEpzyR5J8n1vKT1VZdz9knmPuXhOeg@mail.gmail.com/
> [4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFz2500WfbKXAx8s67wrm9=yVJu65TpLgN_ybYNv0VEOKA@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c
> index d3c001fa8eb4..88cdcea10d61 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43/phy_n.c
> @@ -4222,7 +4222,7 @@ static void b43_nphy_tx_gain_table_upload(struct b43_wldev *dev)

The TODOs and `#if 0` in this function are concerning.  It looks like
`rf_pwr_offset_table` is only used when `phy->rev` is >=7 && < 19.

Further, the loop has a case for `phy->rev >= 19` but we would have
returned earlier if that was the case.

>         u32 rfpwr_offset;
>         u8 pga_gain, pad_gain;
>         int i;
> -       const s16 *uninitialized_var(rf_pwr_offset_table);
> +       const s16 *rf_pwr_offset_table = NULL;
>
>         table = b43_nphy_get_tx_gain_table(dev);
>         if (!table)
> @@ -4256,9 +4256,13 @@ static void b43_nphy_tx_gain_table_upload(struct b43_wldev *dev)
>                         pga_gain = (table[i] >> 24) & 0xf;
>                         pad_gain = (table[i] >> 19) & 0x1f;
>                         if (b43_current_band(dev->wl) == NL80211_BAND_2GHZ)
> -                               rfpwr_offset = rf_pwr_offset_table[pad_gain];
> +                               rfpwr_offset = rf_pwr_offset_table
> +                                               ? rf_pwr_offset_table[pad_gain]
> +                                               : 0;
>                         else
> -                               rfpwr_offset = rf_pwr_offset_table[pga_gain];
> +                               rfpwr_offset = rf_pwr_offset_table
> +                                               ? rf_pwr_offset_table[pga_gain]
> +                                               : 0;


The code is trying to check `phy->rev >= 7 && phy->rev < 19` once
before the loop, then set `rf_pwr_offset_table`, so having another
conditional on `rf_pwr_offset_table` in the loop is unnecessary. I'm
ok with initializing it to `NULL`, but I'm not sure the conditional
check is necessary.  Do you get a compiler warning otherwise?

>                 } else {
>                         pga_gain = (table[i] >> 24) & 0xF;
>                         if (b43_current_band(dev->wl) == NL80211_BAND_2GHZ)
> --
> 2.25.1
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clang Built Linux" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clang-built-linux+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/clang-built-linux/20200603233203.1695403-4-keescook%40chromium.org.



-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers