From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA829C4332F for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:48:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4EA561038 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:48:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231419AbhJUIui (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:50:38 -0400 Received: from m43-7.mailgun.net ([69.72.43.7]:26334 "EHLO m43-7.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230385AbhJUIuh (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:50:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1634806101; h=Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Date: References: Subject: Cc: To: From: Sender; bh=fGTORJsyflzni7NU7S3f+ketqwKwriawQfcTUKvSUSo=; b=GOW2HwA3+ck7TdunG7zz86OMf7Af4EsUMD+/0v5Bpwn0tj4Acxy2gspEExkwJeTw9vcsKUrn oGj4kLb2DjbvNEUX9h1lhiWqvvtOEWw80SCpWEegc4XHivfZHs3XFpuoBa/oYpVI3zKrvptJ PEJQbaitIyzwreM1SzU6jHln/3Q= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.43.7 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJiZjI2MiIsICJuZXRkZXZAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIiwgImJlOWU0YSJd Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n04.prod.us-east-1.postgun.com with SMTP id 6171295559612e010090ef91 (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:48:21 GMT Sender: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 99081C4360D; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:48:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tykki (tynnyri.adurom.net [51.15.11.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCF07C4338F; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:48:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 smtp.codeaurora.org BCF07C4338F Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Pkshih Cc: Colin King , "David S . Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" , "kernel-janitors\@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] rtw89: Fix potential dereference of the null pointer sta References: <20211015154530.34356-1-colin.king@canonical.com> <9cc681c217a449519aee524b35e6b6bc@realtek.com> <87pms2ttvi.fsf@codeaurora.org> <87h7dcf5zj.fsf@codeaurora.org> <35c096e5251f49c1abfbb51f761eab82@realtek.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:48:13 +0300 In-Reply-To: <35c096e5251f49c1abfbb51f761eab82@realtek.com> (Pkshih's message of "Thu, 21 Oct 2021 05:46:15 +0000") Message-ID: <87y26mepbm.fsf@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Pkshih writes: >> >> > I check the size of object files before/after this patch, and >> >> > the original one is smaller. >> >> > >> >> > text data bss dec hex filename >> >> > 16781 3392 1 20174 4ece core-0.o // original >> >> > 16819 3392 1 20212 4ef4 core-1.o // after this patch >> >> > >> >> > Do you think it is worth to apply this patch? >> >> >> >> I think that we should apply the patch. Even though the compiler _may_ >> >> reorder the code, it might choose not to do that. >> > >> > Understand. >> > >> > I have another way to fix this coverity warning, like: >> > >> > @@ -1617,7 +1617,7 @@ static bool rtw89_core_txq_agg_wait(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, >> > { >> > struct rtw89_txq *rtwtxq = (struct rtw89_txq *)txq->drv_priv; >> > struct ieee80211_sta *sta = txq->sta; >> > - struct rtw89_sta *rtwsta = (struct rtw89_sta *)sta->drv_priv; >> > + struct rtw89_sta *rtwsta = sta ? (struct rtw89_sta *)sta->drv_priv : NULL; >> > >> > if (!sta || rtwsta->max_agg_wait <= 0) >> > return false; >> > >> > Is this acceptable? >> > It has a little redundant checking of 'sta', but the code looks clean. >> >> I feel that Colin's fix is more readable, but this is just matter of >> taste. You can choose. > > I would like my version. > > There are three similar warnings reported by smatch, so I will fix them by > myself. Please drop this patch. Ok, dropped. > But, still thank Colin to point out this issue. Indeed, thanks Colin. A good way to thank is to add Reported-by to the commit log. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches