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

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

[Robertus Diawan Chris]

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
-- 
2.54.0

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

[Amirreza Zarrabi]

Hi,

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

Reviewed-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com>

Thanks.
Amir

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

[Amirreza Zarrabi]

Hi,

Forgot to mention: how about using a break instead of a goto.
Then feel free to add Reviewed-by.

Thanks,
Amir


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

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

[Robertus Diawan Chris]

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

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

[Amirreza Zarrabi]

Hi,

On 5/15/2026 3:23 PM, Robertus Diawan Chris wrote:
> 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?
> 

This is a small change. You can add the tag when sending your v2
as long as you include the change.

Best Regards,
Amir

> Thank you.
> 
> Best regards,
> Robertus Diawan Chris

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

[Robertus Diawan Chris]

Hello Amir,

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 04:36:20PM +1000, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/15/2026 3:23 PM, Robertus Diawan Chris wrote:
> > 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?
> >
>
> This is a small change. You can add the tag when sending your v2
> as long as you include the change.

I see. Alright, I will send the patch v2 with the change and the
"Reviewed-by" tag later. Thanks.

Best regards,
Robertus Diawan Chris