Hi Larry,
Sorry to bother you about this, because I know we see this same bug
every time we add another Realtek driver and you must be as sick of it
as I am... :/
The patch a619d1abe20c: "rtlwifi: rtl8723be: Add new driver" from Feb
28, 2014, leads to the following static checker warning:
drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8723be/phy.c:667 _rtl8723be_store_tx_power_by_rate()
error: buffer overflow 'rtlphy->tx_power_by_rate_offset[band]' 4 <= 5
drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8723be/phy.c
646 static void _rtl8723be_store_tx_power_by_rate(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
647 u32 band, u32 rfpath,
648 u32 txnum, u32 regaddr,
649 u32 bitmask, u32 data)
650 {
651 struct rtl_priv *rtlpriv = rtl_priv(hw);
652 struct rtl_phy *rtlphy = &(rtlpriv->phy);
653 u8 rate_section = _rtl8723be_get_rate_section_index(regaddr);
654
655 if (band != BAND_ON_2_4G && band != BAND_ON_5G)
656 RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, COMP_POWER, PHY_TXPWR,
657 "Invalid Band %d\n", band);
658
659 if (rfpath > MAX_RF_PATH)
^^^^^^^^^^^
This should be >= TX_PWR_BY_RATE_NUM_RF. We should return on error
instead of printing an error and then corrupting memory.
I don't know what to do here to make these bugs go away...
660 RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, COMP_POWER, PHY_TXPWR,
661 "Invalid RfPath %d\n", rfpath);
662
663 if (txnum > MAX_RF_PATH)
664 RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, COMP_POWER, PHY_TXPWR,
665 "Invalid TxNum %d\n", txnum);
666
667 rtlphy->tx_power_by_rate_offset[band][rfpath][txnum][rate_section] =
668 data;
669 }
regards,
dan carpenter
On 03/06/2014 03:54 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> Sorry to bother you about this, because I know we see this same bug
> every time we add another Realtek driver and you must be as sick of it
> as I am... :/
>
> The patch a619d1abe20c: "rtlwifi: rtl8723be: Add new driver" from Feb
> 28, 2014, leads to the following static checker warning:
>
> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8723be/phy.c:667 _rtl8723be_store_tx_power_by_rate()
> error: buffer overflow 'rtlphy->tx_power_by_rate_offset[band]' 4 <= 5
>
> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8723be/phy.c
> 646 static void _rtl8723be_store_tx_power_by_rate(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
> 647 u32 band, u32 rfpath,
> 648 u32 txnum, u32 regaddr,
> 649 u32 bitmask, u32 data)
> 650 {
> 651 struct rtl_priv *rtlpriv = rtl_priv(hw);
> 652 struct rtl_phy *rtlphy = &(rtlpriv->phy);
> 653 u8 rate_section = _rtl8723be_get_rate_section_index(regaddr);
> 654
> 655 if (band != BAND_ON_2_4G && band != BAND_ON_5G)
> 656 RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, COMP_POWER, PHY_TXPWR,
> 657 "Invalid Band %d\n", band);
> 658
> 659 if (rfpath > MAX_RF_PATH)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> This should be >= TX_PWR_BY_RATE_NUM_RF. We should return on error
> instead of printing an error and then corrupting memory.
>
> I don't know what to do here to make these bugs go away...
>
> 660 RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, COMP_POWER, PHY_TXPWR,
> 661 "Invalid RfPath %d\n", rfpath);
> 662
> 663 if (txnum > MAX_RF_PATH)
> 664 RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, COMP_POWER, PHY_TXPWR,
> 665 "Invalid TxNum %d\n", txnum);
> 666
> 667 rtlphy->tx_power_by_rate_offset[band][rfpath][txnum][rate_section] =
> 668 data;
> 669 }
Thanks for pointing to these problems.
BTW, what static checker found the problem? I ran the latest Smatch and it did
not find it.
Larry