Re: [PATCH][next] rtw89: Fix potential dereference of the null pointer sta
From: Dan Carpenter <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-02 13:15:12
Also in:
kernel-janitors, linux-wireless, lkml
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 03:35:28AM +0000, Pkshih wrote:
quoted
-----Original Message----- From: Colin King <redacted> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:46 PM To: Kalle Valo <redacted>; David S . Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref]; Pkshih [off-list ref]; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH][next] rtw89: Fix potential dereference of the null pointer sta From: Colin Ian King <redacted> The pointer rtwsta is dereferencing pointer sta before sta is being null checked, so there is a potential null pointer deference issue that may occur. Fix this by only assigning rtwsta after sta has been null checked. Add in a null pointer check on rtwsta before dereferencing it too. Fixes: e3ec7017f6a2 ("rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver") Addresses-Coverity: ("Dereference before null check") Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <redacted> --- drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.cb/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. regards, dan carpenter