Thread (6 messages) 6 messages, 3 authors, 2021-11-04

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.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.

regards,
dan carpenter
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help