Re: [PATCH v2] net: 9p: avoid freeing uninit memory in p9pdu_vreadf

[Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>]

Fedor Pchelkin wrote on Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 12:19:50PM +0300:
> If an error occurs while processing an array of strings in p9pdu_vreadf
> then uninitialized members of *wnames array are freed.
> 
> Fix this by iterating over only lower indices of the array. Also handle
> possible uninit *wnames usage if first p9pdu_readf() call inside 'T' case
> fails.
> 
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org).
> 
> Fixes: ace51c4dd2f9 ("9p: add new protocol support code")
> Signed-off-by: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
> ---
> v2: I've missed that *wnames can also be left uninitialized. Please
> ignore the patch v1.

While I agree it's good to initialize it in general, how is that a
problem here? Do we have users that'd ignore the return code and try to
use *wnames?
(The first initialization is required in case the first p9pdu_readf
fails and *wnames had a non-null initial value, but the second is
unrelated)

I don't mind the change even if there isn't but let's add a word in the
commit message.

> As an answer to Dominique's comment: my organization marks this
> statement in all commits.

Fair enough, I think you'd get more internet points with a 'Reported-by'
but I see plenty of such messages in old commits and this isn't
something I want to argue about -- ok.

-- 
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus