Return-Path: Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:36:52 +0200 From: Andrei Emeltchenko To: Luiz Augusto von Dentz Cc: "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] avrcp: Fix wrong pointer check Message-ID: <20140203093651.GE2930@aemeltch-MOBL1> References: <1391157222-24504-1-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> <20140203074920.GA2930@aemeltch-MOBL1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 01:20:11AM -0800, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > Hi Andrei, > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Andrei Emeltchenko > wrote: > > Hi Luiz, > > > > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 08:03:34AM -0800, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > >> Hi Andrei, > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Andrei Emeltchenko > >> wrote: > >> > From: Andrei Emeltchenko > >> > > >> > There is wrong assumption that handler might be NULL while it is a > >> > pointer to a struct table so check instead for struct members. This > >> > fixes accessing wrong memory. > >> > --- > >> > profiles/audio/avrcp.c | 4 ++-- > >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/profiles/audio/avrcp.c b/profiles/audio/avrcp.c > >> > index df88138..5030ce1 100644 > >> > --- a/profiles/audio/avrcp.c > >> > +++ b/profiles/audio/avrcp.c > >> > @@ -1673,7 +1673,7 @@ static size_t handle_vendordep_pdu(struct avctp *conn, uint8_t transaction, > >> > break; > >> > } > >> > > >> > - if (!handler || handler->code != *code) { > >> > + if (!handler->code || handler->code != *code) { > >> > >> The code checks if session->control_handlers is initialized and Im > >> not sure what is the invalid memory access you are talking about since > >> handle->code is no a pointer, I do agree that we should probably drop > >> the second check for the handler in the lines bellow. > > > > handler is a pointer, and it points to > > > > static const struct control_pdu_handler control_handlers[] > > table with the last element: > > > > ... > > { }, > > }; > > ... > > > > So checking for !handler is pointless. > > Right, because checking for pointer is pointless, yes Im being > sarcastic here... Now lets be clear, you are changing a check of a > pointer to a value and claiming it fixes invalid accesses which does > not make any sense, what could make sense is to check if > handler->pdu_id == pdu->pdu_id since that what we check when we lookup > for a handle. No, we break if handler->pdu_id == pdu->pdu_id one line above ;) Best regards Andrei Emeltchenko > > > > -- > Luiz Augusto von Dentz