On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 1 July 2015 at 18:37, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/07/15 18:12, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>> On 1 July 2015 at 17:56, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Colin King <colin.king at canonical.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Various usif_ioctl helper functions do not initialize the
>>>>>> return variable ret and some of the error handling return
>>>>>> paths just return garbage values that were on the stack (or
>>>>>> in a register). I believe that in all the cases, the
>>>>>> initial ret variable should be set to -EINVAL and subsequent
>>>>>> paths through these helper functions set it appropriately
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Found via static analysis using cppcheck:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_usif.c:138]:
>>>>>> (error) Uninitialized variable: ret
>>>>>
>>>>> It sure would seem that way, wouldn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> #define nvif_unpack(d,vl,vh,m) ({
>>>>> \
>>>>> if ((vl) == 0 || ret == -ENOSYS) {
>>>>> \
>>>>> int _size = sizeof(d);
>>>>> \
>>>>> if (_size <= size && (d).version >= (vl) &&
>>>>> \
>>>>> (d).version <= (vh)) {
>>>>> \
>>>>> data = (u8 *)data + _size;
>>>>> \
>>>>> size = size - _size;
>>>>> \
>>>>> ret = ((m) || !size) ? 0 : -E2BIG;
>>>>> \
>>>>> } else {
>>>>> \
>>>>> ret = -ENOSYS;
>>>>> \
>>>>> }
>>>>> \
>>>>> }
>>>>> \
>>>>> (ret == 0);
>>>>> \
>>>>> })
>>>>>
>>>>> So actually it does get initialized, and I guess cppcheck doesn't know
>>>>> about macros?
>>>
>>> Hrm, what about the case when ((vl) == 0 || ret == -ENOSYS) is false,
>>> where is ret being set in that case?
>>
>> Is that actually the case for any of the callsites? gcc would complain
>> about that...
> There is one:
>
> drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/disp/nv50.c: if (nvif_unpack(args->v1, 1, 1, true))
>
> Seems like a recent addition though, I don't recall it with back when
> was introduced.
It follows a call to nvif_unpack(0) though, which will initialize ret.
