Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1556496 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] clk: stm32f4: avoid uninitialized variable access

Started byArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
First post2017-01-11 14:50 +0100
Last post2017-01-13 00:00 +0100
Articles 5 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  [PATCH] clk: stm32f4: avoid uninitialized variable access Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-01-11 14:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] clk: stm32f4: avoid uninitialized variable access Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@st.com> - 2017-01-11 17:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] clk: stm32f4: avoid uninitialized variable access Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2017-01-12 23:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] clk: stm32f4: avoid uninitialized variable access Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-01-12 23:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] clk: stm32f4: avoid uninitialized variable access Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2017-01-13 00:00 +0100

#1556496 — [PATCH] clk: stm32f4: avoid uninitialized variable access

FromArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date2017-01-11 14:50 +0100
Subject[PATCH] clk: stm32f4: avoid uninitialized variable access
Message-ID<sYrrQ-7xT-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
The failure path in the newly added function tries to free an
uninitialized pointer:

drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c: In function 'stm32f4_rcc_init':
drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c:1106:4: error: 'gate' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]

I'm adding an initialization to NULL here to make the kfree()
succeed, and I'm also rearranging the cleanup so that the
same kfree() is used for any error path, making the function
slightly more robust against newly introduced bugs in the
error handling.

Fixes: daf2d117cbca ("clk: stm32f4: Add lcd-tft clock")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c b/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c
index 42f8534996de..4a3bb6e63525 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c
@@ -1080,7 +1080,7 @@ static struct clk_hw *stm32_register_aux_clk(const char *name,
 		unsigned long flags, spinlock_t *lock)
 {
 	struct clk_hw *hw;
-	struct clk_gate *gate;
+	struct clk_gate *gate = NULL;
 	struct clk_mux *mux = NULL;
 	struct clk_hw *mux_hw = NULL, *gate_hw = NULL;
 	const struct clk_ops *mux_ops = NULL, *gate_ops = NULL;
@@ -1103,7 +1103,6 @@ static struct clk_hw *stm32_register_aux_clk(const char *name,
 	if (offset_mux != NO_MUX) {
 		mux = kzalloc(sizeof(*mux), GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (!mux) {
-			kfree(gate);
 			hw = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 			goto fail;
 		}
@@ -1116,8 +1115,10 @@ static struct clk_hw *stm32_register_aux_clk(const char *name,
 		mux_ops = &clk_mux_ops;
 	}
 
-	if (mux_hw == NULL && gate_hw == NULL)
-		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+	if (mux_hw == NULL && gate_hw == NULL) {
+		hw = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+		goto fail;
+	}
 
 	hw = clk_hw_register_composite(NULL, name, parent_names, num_parents,
 			mux_hw, mux_ops,
@@ -1125,11 +1126,12 @@ static struct clk_hw *stm32_register_aux_clk(const char *name,
 			gate_hw, gate_ops,
 			flags);
 
+fail:
 	if (IS_ERR(hw)) {
 		kfree(gate);
 		kfree(mux);
 	}
-fail:
+
 	return hw;
 }
 
-- 
2.9.0

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1556674

FromGabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@st.com>
Date2017-01-11 17:20 +0100
Message-ID<sYtMZ-Fd-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1556496
On 01/11/2017 02:40 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The failure path in the newly added function tries to free an
> uninitialized pointer:
>
> drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c: In function 'stm32f4_rcc_init':
> drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c:1106:4: error: 'gate' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>
> I'm adding an initialization to NULL here to make the kfree()
> succeed, and I'm also rearranging the cleanup so that the
> same kfree() is used for any error path, making the function
> slightly more robust against newly introduced bugs in the
> error handling.
>
> Fixes: daf2d117cbca ("clk: stm32f4: Add lcd-tft clock")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
>   drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c | 12 +++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
>
Acked-by: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@st.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1557857

FromStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Date2017-01-12 23:10 +0100
Message-ID<sYVJg-Zh-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1556496
On 01/11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The failure path in the newly added function tries to free an
> uninitialized pointer:
> 
> drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c: In function 'stm32f4_rcc_init':
> drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c:1106:4: error: 'gate' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> 
> I'm adding an initialization to NULL here to make the kfree()
> succeed, and I'm also rearranging the cleanup so that the
> same kfree() is used for any error path, making the function
> slightly more robust against newly introduced bugs in the
> error handling.
> 
> Fixes: daf2d117cbca ("clk: stm32f4: Add lcd-tft clock")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---

Applied to clk-next. Seems I need to update my compiler to find
these warnings.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1557888

FromArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date2017-01-12 23:50 +0100
Message-ID<sYWlY-1cO-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1557857
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Applied to clk-next. Seems I need to update my compiler to find
> these warnings.

I'm currently playing with gcc-7, which adds a lot of new warnings
(including many false positives). gcc-6 was supposed to have better
warnings than 5, but I didn't find the difference that noticeable. 5
or 6 is probably best at the moment, and if you have at least 4.9
there is no urgent need to upgrade.

    Arnd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1557904

FromStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Date2017-01-13 00:00 +0100
Message-ID<sYWvD-1gO-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1557888
On 01/12/2017 02:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Applied to clk-next. Seems I need to update my compiler to find
>> these warnings.
> I'm currently playing with gcc-7, which adds a lot of new warnings
> (including many false positives). gcc-6 was supposed to have better
> warnings than 5, but I didn't find the difference that noticeable. 5
> or 6 is probably best at the moment, and if you have at least 4.9
> there is no urgent need to upgrade.

Thanks. I'm on gcc-4.7. It's been a long time since I upgraded my cross
compiler.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web