Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <968036b8-df27-3f22-074b-3aeed7c7bbf2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <968036b8-df27-3f22-074b-3aeed7c7bbf2@gmail.com>
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:44:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXPYbCFsu0zoTafgc3atHvK1TAx=S_NTkfb0UNtKwuZOZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] mwifiex: possible null-pointer dereference in mwifiex_dnld_cmd_to_fw()
To:     Li Tuo <islituo@gmail.com>
Cc:     amit karwar <amitkarwar@gmail.com>,
        Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@gmail.com>,
        Sharvari Harisangam <sharvari.harisangam@nxp.com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@gmail.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "<netdev@vger.kernel.org>" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        baijiaju1990@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 9:13 PM Li Tuo <islituo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our static analysis tool finds a possible null-pointer dereference in
> the mwifiex driver in Linux 5.14.0-rc3:

Wouldn't be the first time a static analysis tool tripped up over
excessively redundant "safety" checks :)

For example:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20210731163546.10753-1-len.baker@gmx.com/T/#u

> The variable cmd_node->cmd_skb->data is assigned to the variable
> host_cmd, and host_cmd is checked in:
> 190:    if (host_cmd == NULL || host_cmd->size == 0)
>
> This indicates that host_cmd can be NULL.
> If so, the function mwifiex_recycle_cmd_node() will be called with the
> argument cmd_node:
> 196:    mwifiex_recycle_cmd_node(adapter, cmd_node);
>
> In this called function, the variable cmd_node->cmd_skb->data is
> assigned to the variable host_cmd, too.
> Thus the variable host_cmd in the function mwifiex_recycle_cmd_node()
> can be also NULL.
> However, it is dereferenced when calling le16_to_cpu():
> 144:    le16_to_cpu(host_cmd->command)
>
> I am not quite sure whether this possible null-pointer dereference is
> real and how to fix it if it is real.
> Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks!

I doubt it's real; the NULL check is probably excessive. I don't think
there's any case in which such skb's will have no ->data. If you're
interested, you could test and submit a "fix" to drop the excess
check.

Brian