Re: [PATCH RFC v2 5/6] staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read32

Pavel Skripkin
2021-08-24T06:53:40Z

On 8/24/21 2:33 AM, Phillip Potter wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 15:36, Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> -static u32 usb_read32(struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32 addr)
>> +static int usb_read32(struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32 addr, u32 *data)
>> {
>> u8 requesttype;
>> u16 wvalue;
>> u16 len;
>> - __le32 data;
>> + int res;
>> + __le32 tmp;
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(unlikely(!data)))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>>
>> requesttype = 0x01;/* read_in */
>>
>> wvalue = (u16)(addr & 0x0000ffff);
>> len = 4;
>>
>> - usbctrl_vendorreq(pintfhdl, wvalue, &data, len, requesttype);
>> + res = usbctrl_vendorreq(pintfhdl, wvalue, &data, len, requesttype);
>> + if (res < 0) {
>> + dev_err(dvobj_to_dev(pintfhdl->pintf_dev), "Failed to read 32 bytes: %d\n", res);
>> + } else {
>> + /* Noone cares about positive return value */
>> + *data = le32_to_cpu(tmp);
>> + res = 0;
>> + }
>>
>> - return le32_to_cpu(data);
>> + return res;
>> }
>
> Dear Pavel,
>
> OK, found the issue with decoded stack trace after reviewing this
> usb_read32 function. Your line:
> res = usbctrl_vendorreq(pintfhdl, wvalue, &data, len, requesttype);
>
> should read:
> res = usbctrl_vendorreq(pintfhdl, wvalue, &tmp, len, requesttype);
>
> With this change, the driver runs fine with no crashes/oopses. I will
> explain the issue but you can probably see already, so I hope I'm not
> coming across as patronising, just trying to be helpful :-)
>
> Essentially, you are taking the address of the data function parameter
> on this line with &data, a pointer to u32, which is giving you a
> pointer to a pointer to u32 (u32 **) for this function parameter
> variable. When passed to usbctrl_vendorreq, it is being passed to
> memcpy inside this function as a void *, meaning that memcpy
> subsequently overwrites the value of the memory address inside data to
> point to a different location, which is problem when it is later
> deferenced at:
> *data = le32_to_cpu(tmp);
> causing the OOPS
>

The most strange thing is why gcc didn't complain about different
pointer types... I think, that gcc must complain about this type of not
explicit casts, because 99% it's a bug.

Again big thanks for analysis :)

With regards,
Pavel Skripkin