Message ID | 5491623.oZlI0zcRmi@wuerfel |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Fri 01-01-16 15:21:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > A new warning about a real bug has come up from a recent cleanup: > > fs/udf/inode.c: In function 'udf_setup_indirect_aext': > fs/udf/inode.c:1927:28: warning: 'adsize' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] > > If the alloc_type is neither ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_SHORT nor ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG, > the value of adsize is undefined. This changes the code to use zero for adsize > in that case, which may be the correct solution, though I have not looked > at the code in enough detail to know if it should be something else instead. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > Fixes: fcea62babc81 ("udf: Factor out code for creating indirect extent") > --- > sorry for missing another instance the first time around. The warning is > a bit unreliable and it seems in my first configuration I got it only > for one of the two instances that show it in other configuration. > > After checking the remaining functions in this file for the same possible > problem, I found that the other functions use either 'BUG()' or 'return -EIO' > in the 'else' path, so I assume the two functions here should one of those > as well, but I don't know which. Callers of these functions make sure alloc_type is one of the two valid ones. However for future-proofing you're right that probably we should handle the invalid case as well. Setting adsize to zero is problematic - not sure what the code would actually do but it wouldn't definitely work. I'd just return -EIO. Attached is the patch I have merged. Honza > > diff --git a/fs/udf/inode.c b/fs/udf/inode.c > index 5b83351041a4..42f68dd7e6ef 100644 > --- a/fs/udf/inode.c > +++ b/fs/udf/inode.c > @@ -1890,6 +1890,8 @@ int udf_setup_indirect_aext(struct inode *inode, int block, > adsize = sizeof(struct short_ad); > else if (UDF_I(inode)->i_alloc_type == ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG) > adsize = sizeof(struct long_ad); > + else > + adsize = 0; > > neloc.logicalBlockNum = block; > neloc.partitionReferenceNum = epos->block.partitionReferenceNum; > @@ -1963,6 +1965,8 @@ int __udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode, struct extent_position *epos, > adsize = sizeof(struct short_ad); > else if (iinfo->i_alloc_type == ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG) > adsize = sizeof(struct long_ad); > + else > + adsize = 0; > > if (!epos->bh) { > WARN_ON(iinfo->i_lenAlloc != > -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CRFrom 4f1b1519f7bec44ded3c2c4d46a2594c01446dc8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 15:21:54 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] udf: avoid uninitialized variable use A new warning has come up from a recent cleanup: fs/udf/inode.c: In function 'udf_setup_indirect_aext': fs/udf/inode.c:1927:28: warning: 'adsize' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] If the alloc_type is neither ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_SHORT nor ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG, the value of adsize is undefined. Currently, callers of these functions make sure alloc_type is one of the two valid ones but for future proofing make sure we handle the case of invalid alloc type as well. This changes the code to return -EIOin that case. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Fixes: fcea62babc81 ("udf: Factor out code for creating indirect extent") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> --- fs/udf/inode.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/udf/inode.c b/fs/udf/inode.c index 846294891925..91d8fa9d87a4 100644 --- a/fs/udf/inode.c +++ b/fs/udf/inode.c @@ -1889,6 +1889,8 @@ int udf_setup_indirect_aext(struct inode *inode, int block, adsize = sizeof(struct short_ad); else if (UDF_I(inode)->i_alloc_type == ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG) adsize = sizeof(struct long_ad); + else + return -EIO; neloc.logicalBlockNum = block; neloc.partitionReferenceNum = epos->block.partitionReferenceNum; @@ -1962,6 +1964,8 @@ int __udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode, struct extent_position *epos, adsize = sizeof(struct short_ad); else if (iinfo->i_alloc_type == ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG) adsize = sizeof(struct long_ad); + else + return -EIO; if (!epos->bh) { WARN_ON(iinfo->i_lenAlloc != -- 2.6.2
On Monday 04 January 2016 10:56:05 Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 01-01-16 15:21:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > A new warning about a real bug has come up from a recent cleanup: > > > > fs/udf/inode.c: In function 'udf_setup_indirect_aext': > > fs/udf/inode.c:1927:28: warning: 'adsize' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] > > > > If the alloc_type is neither ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_SHORT nor ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG, > > the value of adsize is undefined. This changes the code to use zero for adsize > > in that case, which may be the correct solution, though I have not looked > > at the code in enough detail to know if it should be something else instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > Fixes: fcea62babc81 ("udf: Factor out code for creating indirect extent") > > --- > > sorry for missing another instance the first time around. The warning is > > a bit unreliable and it seems in my first configuration I got it only > > for one of the two instances that show it in other configuration. > > > > After checking the remaining functions in this file for the same possible > > problem, I found that the other functions use either 'BUG()' or 'return -EIO' > > in the 'else' path, so I assume the two functions here should one of those > > as well, but I don't know which. > > Callers of these functions make sure alloc_type is one of the two valid > ones. However for future-proofing you're right that probably we should > handle the invalid case as well. Setting adsize to zero is problematic - > not sure what the code would actually do but it wouldn't definitely work. > I'd just return -EIO. Attached is the patch I have merged. > > Looks good, thanks! Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
diff --git a/fs/udf/inode.c b/fs/udf/inode.c index 5b83351041a4..42f68dd7e6ef 100644 --- a/fs/udf/inode.c +++ b/fs/udf/inode.c @@ -1890,6 +1890,8 @@ int udf_setup_indirect_aext(struct inode *inode, int block, adsize = sizeof(struct short_ad); else if (UDF_I(inode)->i_alloc_type == ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG) adsize = sizeof(struct long_ad); + else + adsize = 0; neloc.logicalBlockNum = block; neloc.partitionReferenceNum = epos->block.partitionReferenceNum; @@ -1963,6 +1965,8 @@ int __udf_add_aext(struct inode *inode, struct extent_position *epos, adsize = sizeof(struct short_ad); else if (iinfo->i_alloc_type == ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG) adsize = sizeof(struct long_ad); + else + adsize = 0; if (!epos->bh) { WARN_ON(iinfo->i_lenAlloc !=
A new warning about a real bug has come up from a recent cleanup: fs/udf/inode.c: In function 'udf_setup_indirect_aext': fs/udf/inode.c:1927:28: warning: 'adsize' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] If the alloc_type is neither ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_SHORT nor ICBTAG_FLAG_AD_LONG, the value of adsize is undefined. This changes the code to use zero for adsize in that case, which may be the correct solution, though I have not looked at the code in enough detail to know if it should be something else instead. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Fixes: fcea62babc81 ("udf: Factor out code for creating indirect extent") --- sorry for missing another instance the first time around. The warning is a bit unreliable and it seems in my first configuration I got it only for one of the two instances that show it in other configuration. After checking the remaining functions in this file for the same possible problem, I found that the other functions use either 'BUG()' or 'return -EIO' in the 'else' path, so I assume the two functions here should one of those as well, but I don't know which. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/