lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: tty: serial: fsl_lpuart: fix DMA mapping - static analysis bug report
From
Date
On 03/04/2020 14:05, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2020-04-03 14:44, schrieb Colin Ian King:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Static analysis with Coverity has found an issue with the following
>> commit:
>>
>> From a092ab25fdaa445b821f5959e458350696fce44c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 22:44:31 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] tty: serial: fsl_lpuart: fix DMA mapping
>>
>> The analysis report is as follows for function lpuart_dma_rx_free in
>> source drivers/tty/serial/fsl_lpuart.c :
>>
>> var_compare_op: Comparing chan to null implies that chan might be null.
>>
>> 1234        if (chan)
>> 1235                dmaengine_terminate_all(chan);
>> 1236
>>
>> Dereference after null check (FORWARD_NULL)
>> var_deref_op: Dereferencing null pointer chan.
>>
>> 1237        dma_unmap_sg(chan->device->dev, &sport->rx_sgl, 1,
>> DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
>>
>> The check for chan being null implies it is may be null, however, the
>> call to dma_unmap_sg dereferences chan which leads to a null pointer
>> dereference issue.
>
> Technically, this is correct. But lpuart_dma_rx_free() is guarded by
> lpuart_dma_rx_use which is only true if there is a dma channel, see
> lpuart_rx_dma_startup(). In any way, this looks bogus.
>
> So actually, the "if (chan)" is superfluous. Could you double check that?
> Then I'd make a patch which removes the if (chan) to make coverity happy.

Yep, I've eyeballed the code and all the calls to the
lpuart_dma_rx_free() check lpuart_dma_rx_use is true before the call, so
it does appear the if (chan) check is superfluous.

Colin
>
> -michael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-03 15:13    [W:0.074 / U:1.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site