net/wireless/nl80211.c | 14 +++++++++----- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
Clang static analysis reports this representative problem
nl80211.c:15426:6: warning: Branch condition evaluates
to a garbage value
if (!tb[NL80211_SAR_ATTR_TYPE] ||
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tb is set when nla_parse_nested() is successful.
So check.
Fixes: 6bdb68cef7bf ("nl80211: add common API to configure SAR power limitations")
Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
---
net/wireless/nl80211.c | 14 +++++++++-----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/wireless/nl80211.c b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
index 7543c73a3f1d..c1532c8eb657 100644
--- a/net/wireless/nl80211.c
+++ b/net/wireless/nl80211.c
@@ -15419,9 +15419,11 @@ static int nl80211_set_sar_specs(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
if (!info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_SAR_SPEC])
return -EINVAL;
- nla_parse_nested(tb, NL80211_SAR_ATTR_MAX,
- info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_SAR_SPEC],
- NULL, NULL);
+ err = nla_parse_nested(tb, NL80211_SAR_ATTR_MAX,
+ info->attrs[NL80211_ATTR_SAR_SPEC],
+ NULL, NULL);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
if (!tb[NL80211_SAR_ATTR_TYPE] || !tb[NL80211_SAR_ATTR_SPECS])
return -EINVAL;
@@ -15444,8 +15446,10 @@ static int nl80211_set_sar_specs(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
sar_spec->type = type;
specs = 0;
nla_for_each_nested(spec_list, tb[NL80211_SAR_ATTR_SPECS], rem) {
- nla_parse_nested(spec, NL80211_SAR_ATTR_SPECS_MAX,
- spec_list, NULL, NULL);
+ err = nla_parse_nested(spec, NL80211_SAR_ATTR_SPECS_MAX,
+ spec_list, NULL, NULL);
+ if (err)
+ goto error;
switch (type) {
case NL80211_SAR_TYPE_POWER:
--
2.26.3
On Fri, 2022-02-18 at 08:30 -0800, trix@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>
> Clang static analysis reports this representative problem
> nl80211.c:15426:6: warning: Branch condition evaluates
> to a garbage value
> if (!tb[NL80211_SAR_ATTR_TYPE] ||
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> tb is set when nla_parse_nested() is successful.
> So check.
Well, it's a bit annoying that we cannot express/check this, but we
already validated that it's going to succeed, through the nested policy:
static const struct nla_policy nl80211_policy[NUM_NL80211_ATTR] = {
[...]
[NL80211_ATTR_SAR_SPEC] = NLA_POLICY_NESTED(sar_policy),
Thus, it cannot actually fail. I suppose in this case checking for
errors doesn't make the code that much worse, but there's isn't really
much point. Maybe a comment would be useful?
johannes
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.