[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] staging: rtl8723bs: make memcmp() calls consistent
On 2017-12-13 15:49, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> On 13-12-17 12:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 08:35:12PM +0100, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
>>> rtw_pm_set() uses memcmp() with 5-chars strings and a length of 4 when
>>> parsing extra, and then parses extra+4 as an int:
>>> if (!memcmp(extra, "lps =", 4)) {
>>> sscanf(extra+4, "%u", &mode);
>>> /* ... */
>>> } else if (!memcmp(extra, "ips =", 4)) {
>>> sscanf(extra+4, "%u", &mode);
>>> The space between the key ("lps" and "ips") and the equal sign seems
>>> suspicious. Remove it in order to make the calls to memcmp() consistent.
>> But you now just changing the parsing logic. What broke because of
>> this? Did you test this codepath with your patch?
>> I'm not disagreeing that this code seems really odd, but it must be
>> working as-is for someone, to change this logic will break their system
>> :(
> I don't think this code can work actually, for the memcmp to
> match the extra argument must start with e.g. : "lps ="

No, the extra argument just has to start with "lps ", so something like
"lps 1234" would "work". The memcmp call could just as well use "lps ".

but then mode
> gets read as: sscanf(extra+4, "%u", &mode);, with extra + 4
> pointing at the "=" in the extra arg, so sscanf will stop right
> away and store 0 in mode.

See above, we don't know there's a "=" at extra+4. But in any case,
I don't think sscanf stores anything if there are no digits (and then it
would return 0 since no specifiers matched - the code also lacks a check
of the sscanf return value). But mode is initialized, so it's not going
to use some stack garbage.

All in all, some cleanup seems warranted. Why not just do a sscanf("lps
%u", ...) call and properly check the return value of that? With
whatever prefix string one thinks would be most appropriate.

> So this is for a private extension to the iw interface. I think that
> as part of the cleanup of this driver in staging we should just
> remove all private extensions, which will nicely fix the broken
> function by simply removing it :)

Yeah, that would also work...


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-13 16:12    [W:0.077 / U:13.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site