Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1378650 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-14 11:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-14 22:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 6 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-04-14 11:40 +0200
Re: [patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable "Gabriel L. Somlo" <somlo@cmu.edu> - 2016-04-14 20:50 +0200
Re: [patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-04-14 21:20 +0200
Re: [patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable "Gabriel L. Somlo" <somlo@cmu.edu> - 2016-04-14 21:40 +0200
Re: [patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-04-14 22:10 +0200
Re: [patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable "Gabriel L. Somlo" <somlo@cmu.edu> - 2016-04-14 22:00 +0200
| From | Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 11:40 +0200 |
| Subject | [patch] firmware: qemu_fw_cfg.c: potential unintialized variable |
| Message-ID | <rnLUL-83r-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
It acpi_acquire_global_lock() return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED then "glk" isn't
initialized, which, if you got very unlucky, could cause a bug.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
index d999fe3..0e20116 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static inline u16 fw_cfg_sel_endianness(u16 key)
static inline void fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
void *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
{
- u32 glk;
+ u32 glk = -1U;
acpi_status status;
/* If we have ACPI, ensure mutual exclusion against any potential
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gabriel L. Somlo" <somlo@cmu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rnUv0-6rs-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1378650 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> It acpi_acquire_global_lock() return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED then "glk" isn't
^ ^
If returns
> initialized, which, if you got very unlucky, could cause a bug.
In principle I'm OK with being cautious and initializing local
variables just in case, but I'm curious:
acpi_acquire_global_lock() (and its friend, acpi_release_global_lock())
are both wrapped inside the same macro -- ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_STATUS
-- which either makes them both do something useful, or makes them both
no-ops returning a hardcoded AE_NOT_CONFIGURED.
So what else do you think could be a way to get very unlucky ?
Otherwise, sure: Just 'cause we're paranoid doesn't mean someone's not
out to get us! :)
Thanks,
--Gabriel
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> index d999fe3..0e20116 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static inline u16 fw_cfg_sel_endianness(u16 key)
> static inline void fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
> void *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
> {
> - u32 glk;
> + u32 glk = -1U;
> acpi_status status;
>
> /* If we have ACPI, ensure mutual exclusion against any potential
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rnUY1-71M-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1379219 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 02:40:06PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > It acpi_acquire_global_lock() return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED then "glk" isn't > ^ ^ > If returns > > > initialized, which, if you got very unlucky, could cause a bug. > > > In principle I'm OK with being cautious and initializing local > variables just in case, but I'm curious: > > acpi_acquire_global_lock() (and its friend, acpi_release_global_lock()) > are both wrapped inside the same macro -- ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_STATUS > -- which either makes them both do something useful, or makes them both > no-ops returning a hardcoded AE_NOT_CONFIGURED. > > So what else do you think could be a way to get very unlucky ? If "glk" happened to to equal acpi_gbl_global_lock_handle by chance then we would release it without acquiring it first. Actually I could initialize it to zero and that would be better, no? regards, dan carpenter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gabriel L. Somlo" <somlo@cmu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rnVho-7bz-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1379222 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:12:53PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 02:40:06PM -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > It acpi_acquire_global_lock() return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED then "glk" isn't > > ^ ^ > > If returns > > > > > initialized, which, if you got very unlucky, could cause a bug. > > > > > > In principle I'm OK with being cautious and initializing local > > variables just in case, but I'm curious: > > > > acpi_acquire_global_lock() (and its friend, acpi_release_global_lock()) > > are both wrapped inside the same macro -- ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_STATUS > > -- which either makes them both do something useful, or makes them both > > no-ops returning a hardcoded AE_NOT_CONFIGURED. > > > > So what else do you think could be a way to get very unlucky ? > > If "glk" happened to to equal acpi_gbl_global_lock_handle by chance > then we would release it without acquiring it first. Actually I could > initialize it to zero and that would be better, no? No, because acpi_release_global_lock() would also be a hard-coded "return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED" by the same macro which also hard-coded acpi_acquire_global_lock() to be "return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED" in the first place. See include/acpi/acpixf.h, search for the two occurrences of "#define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_STATUS" and then for: "global_lock" further down in the file. Whether both (or neither) of lock/unlock are for real or just hardcoded to return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED depends on ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE, which I assume is also set when there's *no* ACPI hardware at all. But I don't believe it's possible for "unlock" to do anything at all if "lock" was hardcoded to simply return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED. Then again, it's possible I'm still missing something :) Thanks, --Gabe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rnVKp-7KX-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1379262 |
Ah... I see now. You're right. Thanks for the explanation. On my config those functions are no-ops so the variable isn't initialized. If they were enabled then *probably* it wouldn't generate a warning. Probably just silencing the warning is the way to go though... I bet GCC optimizes it away. Let me think about this some more... regards, dan carpenter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gabriel L. Somlo" <somlo@cmu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rnVAJ-7pv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1378650 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:33:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> It acpi_acquire_global_lock() return AE_NOT_CONFIGURED then "glk" isn't
> initialized, which, if you got very unlucky, could cause a bug.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> index d999fe3..0e20116 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qemu_fw_cfg.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static inline u16 fw_cfg_sel_endianness(u16 key)
> static inline void fw_cfg_read_blob(u16 key,
> void *buf, loff_t pos, size_t count)
> {
> - u32 glk;
> + u32 glk = -1U;
After digging through the acpi_[acquire|release]_global_lock() code in
drivers/acpi/acpica/evxface.c, the -1 value actually makes sense, as
glk is set to the value of acpi_gbl_global_lock_handle, which
internally is a 16-bit value which can wrap around, but will never be
equal to 32-bit "-1". As such, the unlock function would fail with
AE_NOT_ACQUIRED if its "for-real" version ever ended up being called.
So, with the typos in the commit blurb fixed (s/It/If/ and
s/return/returns/), and on general "belt-and-suspenders" principle,
Reviewed-by: Gabriel Somlo <somlo@cmu.edu>
I just wanted to make sure my understanding of "this can't happen with
the way the ACPI macros are currently defined" is still correct :)
Thanks,
--Gabe
> acpi_status status;
>
> /* If we have ACPI, ensure mutual exclusion against any potential
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web