drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using
it. This prevents a potential off by one read access.
Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
---
drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params,
}
/* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */
- for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) {
+ for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) {
if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO ||
u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO)
qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o);
--
2.51.0
On 9/18/2025 7:50 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using > it. This prevents a potential off by one read access. > > Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver") > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644 > --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params, > } > > /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */ > - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) { > + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) { > if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO || > u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO) > qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o); This is not required, considering the sequence of clean up, this would never happen. `i` at least have been accessed once in the switch above. Regards, Amir
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 08:48:29AM +1000, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > On 9/18/2025 7:50 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using > > it. This prevents a potential off by one read access. > > > > Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver") > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params, > > } > > > > /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */ > > - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) { > > + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) { > > if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO || > > u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO) > > qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o); > > This is not required, considering the sequence of clean up, this > would never happen. `i` at least have been accessed once in the > switch above. Only the first iteration has been accessed. The rest no. regards, dan carpenter
On 9/24/2025 8:48 AM, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > On 9/18/2025 7:50 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using >> it. This prevents a potential off by one read access. >> >> Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver") >> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c >> index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c >> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c >> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params, >> } >> >> /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */ >> - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) { >> + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) { >> if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO || >> u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO) >> qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o); > > This is not required, considering the sequence of clean up, this > would never happen. `i` at least have been accessed once in the > switch above. > > Regards, > Amir > > Also, size of u is always num_params + 1 for the ending 0. (basically means `i < num_params` can be removed). Anyway, it does not hurt :). Regards, Amir
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 08:58:45AM +1000, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > > > On 9/24/2025 8:48 AM, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > > On 9/18/2025 7:50 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using > >> it. This prevents a potential off by one read access. > >> > >> Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver") > >> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> > >> --- > >> drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > >> index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > >> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > >> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params, > >> } > >> > >> /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */ > >> - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) { > >> + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) { > >> if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO || > >> u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO) > >> qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o); > > > > This is not required, considering the sequence of clean up, this > > would never happen. `i` at least have been accessed once in the > > switch above. > > > > Regards, > > Amir > > > > > > Also, size of u is always num_params + 1 for the ending 0. > (basically means `i < num_params` can be removed). > Yes. This is true. regards, dan carpenter
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 9:36 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 08:58:45AM +1000, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > > > > > > On 9/24/2025 8:48 AM, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > > > On 9/18/2025 7:50 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > >> Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using > > >> it. This prevents a potential off by one read access. > > >> > > >> Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver") > > >> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> > > >> --- > > >> drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > >> index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644 > > >> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > >> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > >> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params, > > >> } > > >> > > >> /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */ > > >> - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) { > > >> + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) { > > >> if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO || > > >> u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO) > > >> qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o); > > > > > > This is not required, considering the sequence of clean up, this > > > would never happen. `i` at least have been accessed once in the > > > switch above. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Amir > > > > > > > > > > Also, size of u is always num_params + 1 for the ending 0. > > (basically means `i < num_params` can be removed). > > > > Yes. This is true. So this patch isn't needed. I'll drop it if no one objects. Cheers, Jens
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 11:21:34AM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 9:36 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 08:58:45AM +1000, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 9/24/2025 8:48 AM, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote: > > > > On 9/18/2025 7:50 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > >> Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using > > > >> it. This prevents a potential off by one read access. > > > >> > > > >> Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver") > > > >> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> > > > >> --- > > > >> drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- > > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > > >> index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644 > > > >> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > > >> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > > >> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params, > > > >> } > > > >> > > > >> /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */ > > > >> - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) { > > > >> + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) { > > > >> if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO || > > > >> u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO) > > > >> qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o); > > > > > > > > This is not required, considering the sequence of clean up, this > > > > would never happen. `i` at least have been accessed once in the > > > > switch above. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Amir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, size of u is always num_params + 1 for the ending 0. > > > (basically means `i < num_params` can be removed). > > > > > > > Yes. This is true. > > So this patch isn't needed. I'll drop it if no one objects. The patch makes the code better though... It never really makes sense to use a variable first and then check if it's valid later. In this case the check isn't required. Ideally the code would only have one limit. We could either do: for (; i < num_params; i++) { Or: for (; u[i].type != QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV; i++) { Either way works... regards, dan carpenter
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 12:50:26PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using > it. This prevents a potential off by one read access. > > Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver") > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Reviewed-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@oss.qualcomm.com> -Sumit > > diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644 > --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params, > } > > /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */ > - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) { > + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) { > if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO || > u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO) > qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o); > -- > 2.51.0 > >
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 7:21 AM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 12:50:26PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using > > it. This prevents a potential off by one read access. > > > > Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver") > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Reviewed-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@oss.qualcomm.com> Applied. /Jens > > -Sumit > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c > > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params, > > } > > > > /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */ > > - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) { > > + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) { > > if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO || > > u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO) > > qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o); > > -- > > 2.51.0 > > > >
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.