From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f51.google.com (mail-ej1-f51.google.com [209.85.218.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFF213FC0 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 20:06:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f51.google.com with SMTP id bt14so32402232ejb.3 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:06:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xo073HecdrENZFwBS6Ln9E6uG6+bInrbYzCVBgGcUuY=; b=GQ8w7HCFN8TB61i0H/Vzirn2bkxzGi2h3gcDLEAjKBbyU3VS06wQzENMJwTRPOzFPu QeZ2XL9xhIJ3x8kt4/G7ztNNWYA+UfgmbdvsSMeJYmGpFmTagAd3+GAS27FrfX05roF8 7Z8pmw6+9oHINPuHiVzQzrRYrlqzsQyQa5JGkx26oFnXi5nuy5DT0v/UKo2nBTwpyg27 4wSA0vlvYPnxhd91GgdDS6OXD29rQXfkYgDw6lzHdfIE1MaVjNfGj1h7Erdr1DSGvf/3 SyhCfQUuSu1r0T91m5vWSYNJCyHfkBYxvafvSg+vchs99cNFMwQ+OEq6xwgKDqatU/LG 4Sbw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xo073HecdrENZFwBS6Ln9E6uG6+bInrbYzCVBgGcUuY=; b=CiipCujS+ZAunzXgI343DswIPMgP9YmZUD6W6xncqLQM38qLRvKtr8SsQKxzFi30HI p65HMJYSH3+oG4jSc1f1EQDG0RBkbLTRDNrwUTJ8xyWldk5Q8Q/JIIp+cKZgXJ3TwHbe BCpntB9x3KdmtcKpfyTCc71kM8BYGkH0yCWsBoWgdMxX1czeQnT+rCdIWsJI8NLiZuS7 zmdJgOF1QlXH7HbPrgdRLOX7FVJB2k9axwxvafvy2wTOF2zvKearTTmrYMEs0T2qwCvO MU7Xrx8GpyxNa+7b3EBCWr4JLonv8zcL9g2PLV4pCQw+KmMvl8VQamRFtil3Ox1RdH1b otxA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531QKcgn3wWGCG7rhRwdFCiiQgf+u8me3ROpVDpru4ngbpKBKZjT uUMHZG79VrNQwXAYP7SSzXw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqBPXjFCQyoklkdgNhuUTOyjbomYDpsgDzBZ1dKQeYFt5KqpUSh89WE469LWFmaGrjHpFmGQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:ec9:: with SMTP id u9mr31432397eji.243.1629662789247; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (host-79-22-100-164.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.22.100.164]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bs13sm6161338ejb.98.2021.08.22.13.06.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:06:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" To: Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, phil@philpotter.co.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, straube.linux@gmail.com, Pavel Skripkin Cc: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/6] staging: r8188eu: avoid uninit value bugs Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 22:06:27 +0200 Message-ID: <3600115.G8iuhHfNpT@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <9ef4cd9f-4f0c-bc6a-76d2-b9e30f6744a4@gmail.com> References: <6182ed46-d79d-7f66-c7c0-096486410b4d@gmail.com> <15979623.JslXr83I74@localhost.localdomain> <9ef4cd9f-4f0c-bc6a-76d2-b9e30f6744a4@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:38:11 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote: > On 8/22/21 8:36 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 4:35:05 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote: > >> Hi, Greg, Larry and Phillip! > >> > >> I noticed, that new staging driver was added like 3 weeks ago and I decided > >> to look at the code, because drivers in staging directory are always buggy. > >> > >> The first thing I noticed is *no one* was checking read operations result, but > >> it can fail and driver may start writing random stack values into registers. It > >> can cause driver misbehavior or device misbehavior. > >> > >> To avoid this type of bugs, I've changed rtw_read* API. Now all rtw_read > >> funtions return an error, when something went wrong with usb transfer. > >> > >> It helps callers to break/return earlier and don't write random values to > >> registers or to rely on random values. > >> > >> Why is this pacth series RFC? > >> 1. I don't have this device and I cannot test these changes. > >> 2. I don't know how to handle errors in each particular case. For now, function > >> just returns or returns an error. That's all. I hope, driver maintainers will > >> help with these bits. > >> 3. I guess, I handled not all uninit value bugs here. I hope, I fixed > >> at least half of them > >> > >> v1 -> v2: > >> 1. Make rtw_read*() return an error instead of initializing pointer to error > >> 2. Split one huge patch to smaller ones for each rtw_read{8,16,32} function > >> changes > >> 3. Add new macro for printing register values (It helps to not copy-paste error > >> handling) > >> 4. Removed {read,write}_macreg (Suggested by Phillip) > >> 5. Rebased on top of staging-next > >> 6. Cleaned checkpatch errors and warnings > >> > >> Only build-tested, since I don't have device with r8118eu chip > >> > >> Pavel Skripkin (6): > >> staging: r8188eu: remove {read,write}_macreg > >> staging: r8188eu: add helper macro for printing registers > >> staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read8 > >> staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read16 > >> staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read32 > >> staging: r8188eu: make ReadEFuse return an int > > > > Hi Pavel, > > > > I've just read your v2 of the series. I had no time to read each and every line, > > however, I suppose that I saw enough to say that I think they are a huge > > improvement over v1. I really like your patches and if I were you, I'd drop > > that RFC tag. > > > > Thank you, Fabio! I appreciate it :) > > > With regards, > Pavel Skripkin Hi Pavel, I've read more code of your series and I'm ready to give a formal ack. However, I'm not sure about the rules: can it be also given to RFC or only to "real" patches? As I've already said, they look good and I like them. So, the entire series is... Acked-by: Fabio M. De Francesco If the rules don't allow to formally ack RFC, I will be happy to ack again the final product. I also want to say that I enjoyed discussing this work with you on this long thread. :-) Thanks, Fabio