From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB380C2BA2B for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 11:05:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F3C20771 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 11:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gerhold.net header.i=@gerhold.net header.b="chGUEpHn" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726583AbgDILFF (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 07:05:05 -0400 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([85.215.255.25]:15215 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725828AbgDILFF (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 07:05:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1586430304; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=gerhold.net; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=JZtWUKSt/SSRJuXHNVjkglmAeQX7E7zzV3vHhB09VW0=; b=chGUEpHntb16dm8h1gVnLKFvqbWHU1w6NsIZQvqomGz+eEWj5sSIK7419u/YIBWK4S XB3J7D7+7MF5t99y/HWIotDV6h+3eaB++D7EmxJFI/hG8MtsCKqvEjo1OOmVhXXOkaf3 vj1F54wqnEGUWpRF8j5qA3EwSJiGUC3xOW6UT/Mu8JxoSqj9CyhOskyIxToADEWWB6jR UTj4ZlxxEzB/IzaM0dGdo1KJcBZ9gVGjk3Cz+yVLbzM2KsEx1GUHQOqu2shhi/swJ/Du c0Als63JPcHr0bJVoFfxLG0KiM7j2DbrvBrLUN3aD1+hd/mhK2fBk1OK1w6vGBPmRyuJ QRIQ== X-RZG-AUTH: ":P3gBZUipdd93FF5ZZvYFPugejmSTVR2nRPhVOQ/OcYgojyw4j34+u26zEodhPgRDZ8j7Ic/HYoo=" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from gerhold.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 46.2.1 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id u043b8w39B1uLf8 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:01:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:01:52 +0200 From: Stephan Gerhold To: Alexandre Bard Cc: lorenzo.bianconi83@gmail.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: imu: st_lsm6dsx: Fix reading array out of bounds Message-ID: <20200409110128.GA53758@gerhold.net> References: <20200409085818.9533-1-alexandre.bard@netmodule.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200409085818.9533-1-alexandre.bard@netmodule.com> Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 10:58:18AM +0200, Alexandre Bard wrote: > Former code was iterating through all possible IDs whereas only a few > per settings array are really available. Leading to several out of > bounds readings. > > Line is now longer than 80 characters. But since it is a classic for > loop I think it is better to keep it like this than splitting it. > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Bard > --- > drivers/iio/imu/st_lsm6dsx/st_lsm6dsx_core.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/st_lsm6dsx/st_lsm6dsx_core.c b/drivers/iio/imu/st_lsm6dsx/st_lsm6dsx_core.c > index 84d219ae6aee..be8882ff30eb 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/imu/st_lsm6dsx/st_lsm6dsx_core.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/st_lsm6dsx/st_lsm6dsx_core.c > @@ -1350,7 +1350,7 @@ static int st_lsm6dsx_check_whoami(struct st_lsm6dsx_hw *hw, int id, > int err, i, j, data; > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(st_lsm6dsx_sensor_settings); i++) { > - for (j = 0; j < ST_LSM6DSX_MAX_ID; j++) { > + for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(st_lsm6dsx_sensor_settings[i].id); j++) { id in st_lsm6dsx_settings is declared as: struct { enum st_lsm6dsx_hw_id hw_id; const char *name; } id[ST_LSM6DSX_MAX_ID]; so it's always ST_LSM6DSX_MAX_ID long (additional entries are just zero-initialized). Isn't ARRAY_SIZE(st_lsm6dsx_sensor_settings[i].id) == ST_LSM6DSX_MAX_ID in this case? > if (st_lsm6dsx_sensor_settings[i].id[j].name && > id == st_lsm6dsx_sensor_settings[i].id[j].hw_id) > break; > -- > 2.20.1 >