From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:55562 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726277AbeHWM3l (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 08:29:41 -0400 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jiang , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 4.17 242/324] nfit: fix unchecked dereference in acpi_nfit_ctl Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:55:08 +0200 Message-Id: <20180823075008.204249365@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20180823074955.885811006@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180823074955.885811006@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 4.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Dave Jiang [ Upstream commit ee6581ceba7f8314b81b2f2a81f1cf3f67c679e2 ] Incremental patch to fix the unchecked dereference in acpi_nfit_ctl. Reported by Dan Carpenter: "acpi/nfit: fix cmd_rc for acpi_nfit_ctl to always return a value" from Jun 28, 2018, leads to the following Smatch complaint: drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c:578 acpi_nfit_ctl() warn: variable dereferenced before check 'cmd_rc' (see line 411) drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c 410 411 *cmd_rc = -EINVAL; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Patch adds unchecked dereference. Fixes: c1985cefd844 ("acpi/nfit: fix cmd_rc for acpi_nfit_ctl to always return a value") Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c @@ -408,7 +408,8 @@ int acpi_nfit_ctl(struct nvdimm_bus_desc const guid_t *guid; int rc, i; - *cmd_rc = -EINVAL; + if (cmd_rc) + *cmd_rc = -EINVAL; func = cmd; if (cmd == ND_CMD_CALL) { call_pkg = buf; @@ -519,7 +520,8 @@ int acpi_nfit_ctl(struct nvdimm_bus_desc * If we return an error (like elsewhere) then caller wouldn't * be able to rely upon data returned to make calculation. */ - *cmd_rc = 0; + if (cmd_rc) + *cmd_rc = 0; return 0; }