Coverity found that the variable tx_rx in the function
xilinx_spips_flush_txfifo was being used uninitialized (CID 1383841). This
patch corrects this by always initializing tx_rx to zeros.

Signed-off-by: Francisco Iglesias <frasse.iglesias@gmail.com>
---
 hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c b/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
index d8187fa..77e1bbe 100644
--- a/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
+++ b/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
@@ -210,6 +210,8 @@
 #define SNOOP_NONE 0xEE
 #define SNOOP_STRIPING 0
 
+#define MAX_NUM_EFFECTIVE_BUSSES 2
+
 static inline int num_effective_busses(XilinxSPIPS *s)
 {
     return (s->regs[R_LQSPI_CFG] & LQSPI_CFG_SEP_BUS &&
@@ -573,7 +575,7 @@ static void xilinx_spips_flush_txfifo(XilinxSPIPS *s)
     for (;;) {
         int i;
         uint8_t tx = 0;
-        uint8_t tx_rx[num_effective_busses(s)];
+        uint8_t tx_rx[MAX_NUM_EFFECTIVE_BUSSES] = { 0 };
         uint8_t dummy_cycles = 0;
         uint8_t addr_length;
 
-- 
2.9.3

On 14 January 2018 at 22:55, Francisco Iglesias
<frasse.iglesias@gmail.com> wrote:
> Coverity found that the variable tx_rx in the function
> xilinx_spips_flush_txfifo was being used uninitialized (CID 1383841). This
> patch corrects this by always initializing tx_rx to zeros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Francisco Iglesias <frasse.iglesias@gmail.com>
> ---
>  hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c b/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
> index d8187fa..77e1bbe 100644
> --- a/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
> +++ b/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
> @@ -210,6 +210,8 @@
>  #define SNOOP_NONE 0xEE
>  #define SNOOP_STRIPING 0
>
> +#define MAX_NUM_EFFECTIVE_BUSSES 2
> +
>  static inline int num_effective_busses(XilinxSPIPS *s)
>  {
>      return (s->regs[R_LQSPI_CFG] & LQSPI_CFG_SEP_BUS &&
> @@ -573,7 +575,7 @@ static void xilinx_spips_flush_txfifo(XilinxSPIPS *s)
>      for (;;) {
>          int i;
>          uint8_t tx = 0;
> -        uint8_t tx_rx[num_effective_busses(s)];
> +        uint8_t tx_rx[MAX_NUM_EFFECTIVE_BUSSES] = { 0 };
>          uint8_t dummy_cycles = 0;
>          uint8_t addr_length;

It doesn't look like your device's realize method is sanity checking
the num_busses property, so this change means that the user can
make the device model segfault by passing it a num_busses property
value larger than 2...

thanks
-- PMM

On Tuesday, 16 January 2018, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 14 January 2018 at 22:55, Francisco Iglesias
> <frasse.iglesias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Coverity found that the variable tx_rx in the function
> > xilinx_spips_flush_txfifo was being used uninitialized (CID 1383841).
> This
> > patch corrects this by always initializing tx_rx to zeros.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Francisco Iglesias <frasse.iglesias@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c b/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
> > index d8187fa..77e1bbe 100644
> > --- a/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
> > +++ b/hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c
> > @@ -210,6 +210,8 @@
> >  #define SNOOP_NONE 0xEE
> >  #define SNOOP_STRIPING 0
> >
> > +#define MAX_NUM_EFFECTIVE_BUSSES 2
> > +
> >  static inline int num_effective_busses(XilinxSPIPS *s)
> >  {
> >      return (s->regs[R_LQSPI_CFG] & LQSPI_CFG_SEP_BUS &&
> > @@ -573,7 +575,7 @@ static void xilinx_spips_flush_txfifo(XilinxSPIPS
> *s)
> >      for (;;) {
> >          int i;
> >          uint8_t tx = 0;
> > -        uint8_t tx_rx[num_effective_busses(s)];
> > +        uint8_t tx_rx[MAX_NUM_EFFECTIVE_BUSSES] = { 0 };
> >          uint8_t dummy_cycles = 0;
> >          uint8_t addr_length;
>
> It doesn't look like your device's realize method is sanity checking
> the num_busses property, so this change means that the user can
> make the device model segfault by passing it a num_busses property
> value larger than 2...
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>

Hi Peter,

Thank you very much for reviewing the patch and I apologize for missing out
on above. I'll look into a correction and create a new version of the patch.

Best regards,
Francisco Iglesias