netdev - Re: [PATCH][next] rtw89: Fix potential dereference of the null pointer sta

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: <20211103102128.GL2794@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 3 Nov 2021 13:21:29 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Pkshih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
Cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] rtw89: Fix potential dereference of the null
 pointer sta

On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 12:36:17AM +0000, Pkshih wrote:

> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c
> > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c
> > > > index 06fb6e5b1b37..26f52a25f545 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c
> > > > @@ -1534,9 +1534,14 @@ static bool rtw89_core_txq_agg_wait(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
> > > >  {
> > > >  	struct rtw89_txq *rtwtxq = (struct rtw89_txq *)txq->drv_priv;
> > > >  	struct ieee80211_sta *sta = txq->sta;
> > > > -	struct rtw89_sta *rtwsta = (struct rtw89_sta *)sta->drv_priv;
> > >
> > > 'sta->drv_priv' is only a pointer, we don't really dereference the
> > > data right here, so I think this is safe. More, compiler can optimize
> > > this instruction that reorder it to the place just right before using.
> > > So, it seems like a false alarm.
> > 
> > The warning is about "sta" not "sta->priv".  It's not a false positive.
> > 
> > I have heard discussions about compilers trying to work around these
> > bugs by re-ordering the code.  Is that an option in GCC?  It's not
> > something we should rely on, but I'm just curious if it exists in
> > released versions.
> > 
> 
> I say GCC does "reorder" the code, because the object codes of following
> two codes are identical with default or -Os ccflags.

Huh...  That's cool.  GCC doesn't re-order it for me, but I'm on GCC 8
so maybe it will work when I get to a more modern version.

regards,
dan carpenter