Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-80057-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 12:14:15 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen
 <lars@metafoo.de>, Uwe =?UTF-8?B?S2xlaW5lLUvDtm5pZw==?=
 <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, Nuno =?UTF-8?B?U8Oh?=
 <nuno.sa@analog.com>, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor
 <nathan@kernel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>, Bill
 Wendling <morbo@google.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
 llvm@lists.linux.dev, Tomislav Denis <tomislav.denis@avl.com>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: pressure: dlhl60d: Initialize empty DLH bytes
Message-ID: <20240225121415.273ec110@jic23-huawei>
In-Reply-To: <202402230949.E06F3297@keescook>
References: <20240223172936.it.875-kees@kernel.org>
	<ZdjaOLVd1yxNXhsp@smile.fi.intel.com>
	<202402230949.E06F3297@keescook>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:50:10 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 07:47:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:29:39AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:  
> > > 3 bytes were being read but 4 were being written. Explicitly initialize
> > > the unused bytes to 0 and refactor the loop to use direct array
> > > indexing, which appears to silence a Clang false positive warning[1].  
> > 
> > ...
> >   
> > >  	for_each_set_bit(chn, indio_dev->active_scan_mask,
> > > -		indio_dev->masklength) {
> > > -		memcpy(tmp_buf + i,
> > > +			 indio_dev->masklength) {
> > > +		memcpy(&tmp_buf[i++],
> > >  			&st->rx_buf[1] + chn * DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES,
> > >  			DLH_NUM_DATA_BYTES);
> > > -		i++;
> > >  	}  
> > 
> > Not that I'm against the changes, but they (in accordance with the commit
> > message) are irrelevant to this fix. I prefer fixes to be more focused on
> > the real issues.  
> 
> Jonathan, let me know if you'd prefer I split this patch...
> 
Andy is strictly speaking correct that the indent should be separate patch
but meh - not worth the time to split that out + the change makes the
fixed code itself easier to read. 

I added a tiny comment to say it the indent tidying up was incorporated
so the fixed code was more readable.

Applied to the fixes-togreg branch of iio.git and marked for stable.

Given timing this may well go in during the merge window rather than
before.

Jonathan