From: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: Mert Seftali <mertsftl@gmail.com>, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] leds: pwm: Annotate leds[] with __counted_by()
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 10:13:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260709091356.GA2045740@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260702160459.9BC4E1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org>
On Thu, 02 Jul 2026, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [High] The addition of the `__counted_by(num_leds)` annotation causes an unconditional out-of-bounds trap during probe.
Can you provide comment or remediation please?
> --
>
> commit f2069ade09481403f091ed2758ef698b0c75c2cc
> Author: Mert Seftali <mertsftl@gmail.com>
>
> leds: pwm: Annotate leds[] with __counted_by()
>
> This commit adds the __counted_by(num_leds) attribute to the flexible array
> member leds[] in struct led_pwm_priv for bounds checking. It also updates
> led_pwm_add() to accept the led_pwm_data element directly, leaving num_leds
> to be incremented in the caller.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c
> > index 6c1f2f50ff854..dabdf04235826 100644
> > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c
> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ struct led_pwm_data {
> >
> > struct led_pwm_priv {
> > int num_leds;
> > - struct led_pwm_data leds[];
> > + struct led_pwm_data leds[] __counted_by(num_leds);
> > };
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -193,9 +191,10 @@ static int led_pwm_create_fwnode(struct device *dev, struct led_pwm_priv *priv)
> >
> > led.default_state = led_init_default_state_get(fwnode);
> >
> > - ret = led_pwm_add(dev, priv, &led, fwnode);
> > + ret = led_pwm_add(dev, &priv->leds[priv->num_leds], &led, fwnode);
>
> [Severity: High]
> Does evaluating &priv->leds[priv->num_leds] before incrementing num_leds
> trigger an out-of-bounds trap under UBSAN_BOUNDS or FORTIFY_SOURCE?
>
> Because leds is now annotated with __counted_by(num_leds), the compiler
> expects the valid indices to be less than num_leds. When this loop starts
> in led_pwm_create_fwnode(), priv->num_leds is initially 0. Taking the address
> of index 0 when the count is 0 will fail the bounds check and trigger a
> splat during driver probe.
>
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > + priv->num_leds++;
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
>
> --
> Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260702155452.67594-1-mertseftali@web.de?part=1
--
Lee Jones
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-09 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-02 15:54 [PATCH v2] leds: pwm: Annotate leds[] with __counted_by() Mert Seftali
2026-07-02 16:04 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-09 9:13 ` Lee Jones [this message]
2026-07-09 13:57 ` Mert Seftali
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260709091356.GA2045740@google.com \
--to=lee@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-leds@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mertsftl@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox