Re: [PATCH] tee: qcomtee: add missing va_end in early return qcomtee_object_user_init()

[Robertus Diawan Chris <robertusdchris@gmail.com>]

Hello Amir,

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 11:31:50AM +1000, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote:
> On 5/13/2026 7:10 PM, Robertus Diawan Chris wrote:
> > qcomtee_object_user_init() is a variadic function and when the function
> > return because there's no dispatch callback in QCOMTEE_OBJECT_TYPE_CB
> > case, there's no va_end to cleanup "ap" object initialized by va_start
> > and that can cause undefined behavior. So make sure to use va_end before
> > returning the error code when there's no dispatch callback.
> >
> > This is reported by Coverity Scan as "Missing varargs init or cleanup".
> >
> > Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Robertus Diawan Chris <robertusdchris@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > I don't have the device, so I am not sure how to test this change.
> > Thank you.
> >
> >  drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c | 8 ++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c
> > index b1cb50e434f0..901a31e8201f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c
> > @@ -306,8 +306,10 @@ int qcomtee_object_user_init(struct qcomtee_object *object,
> >  		break;
> >  	case QCOMTEE_OBJECT_TYPE_CB:
> >  		object->ops = ops;
> > -		if (!object->ops->dispatch)
> > -			return -EINVAL;
> > +		if (!object->ops->dispatch) {
> > +			ret = -EINVAL;
> > +			goto out;
> > +		}
> >
> >  		/* If failed, "no-name". */
> >  		object->name = kvasprintf_const(GFP_KERNEL, fmt, ap);
> > @@ -320,6 +322,8 @@ int qcomtee_object_user_init(struct qcomtee_object *object,
> >  	default:
> >  		ret = -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> > +
> > +out:
> >  	va_end(ap);
> >
> >  	return ret;
> >
> > base-commit: 5d6919055dec134de3c40167a490f33c74c12581
>
> Hi,
>
> Forgot to mention: how about using a break instead of a goto.

Oh right. In this case, using "break" statement is enough. I will send
the v2 of the patch. Maybe something like this:

	if (!object->ops->dispatch) {
		ret = -EINVAL;
		break;
	}

and then remove the "out" label.

> Then feel free to add Reviewed-by.

I want to confirm first, if I changed the patch using "break" statement,
do I need to add "Reviewed-by" tag in the v2 of the patch or not? I am
still not sure when to add "Reviewed-by" tag, like can we add
"Reviewed-by" tag when we changed the patch?

Thank you.

Best regards,
Robertus Diawan Chris