From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751215AbdFAOke (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:40:34 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40486 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751134AbdFAOkc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 1 Jun 2017 10:40:32 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:40:19 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi: Check DMI structure length
Message-ID: <20170601164019.0a4035a4@endymion>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vf7R_GeFhA5c2PR42K=cp-UbK4u2o7B5N9Ceu_NdFXmzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170601150839.08fdb556@endymion>
        <CAHp75Vf7R_GeFhA5c2PR42K=cp-UbK4u2o7B5N9Ceu_NdFXmzg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: SUSE Linux
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the review.

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:16:05 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:
> > Before accessing DMI data to record it for later, we should ensure
> > that the DMI structures are large enough to contain the data in
> > question.  
> 
> > -       const u8 *d = (u8 *) dm + index;
> > +       const u8 *d;  
> 
> > +       d = (u8 *) dm + index;  
> 
> I think you may leave this as is and make it compiler's burden to optimize.

Is there any benefit except making the patch smaller?

> > -       const u8 *d = (u8 *) dm + index;
> > +       const u8 *d;  
> 
> > +       d = (u8 *) dm + index;  
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> > -       int i, count = *(u8 *)(dm + 1);
> > +       int i, count;  
> 
> > +       count = *(u8 *)(dm + 1);  
> 
> Ditto.

I would expect a static code analyzer to complain about at least the
last one. Dereferencing a pointer before checking its validity is bad.

I'm not a big fan of counting of compiler optimizations to make the
code right.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support