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.