Hi Jonathan,
On Sun, Jan 09, 2022 at 03:25:57PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 09:14:01 +0100
> Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On one side we have indio_dev->num_channels includes all physical channels +
> > timestamp channel. On other side we have an array allocated only for
> > physical channels. So, fix memory corruption by ARRAY_SIZE() instead of
> > num_channels variable.
> >
> > Fixes: 9374e8f5a38d ("iio: adc: add ADC driver for the TI TSC2046 controller")
> > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Olesij,
>
> Have you managed to make this occur, or is it inspection only?
Yes, this bug has eaten my rx_one and tx_one pointers on probe. I wonted
to use this buffers for read_raw and noticed that they do not exist.
> I 'think' (it's been a while since I looked at the particular code) that the timestamp
> bit in active_scan_mask will never actually be set because we handle that as a
> separate flag.
I didn't tested if active_scan_mask will trigger this issue as well, but
It it looked safer to me, to avoid this issue in both places. Even if on
of it is only theoretical.
> So it is indeed an efficiency improvement to not check that bit but I don't think
> it's a bug to do so. More than possible I'm missing something though!
>
> This one had me quite worried when I first read it because this is a very common
> pattern to see in IIO drivers.
I was thinking about this as well, because big part of this code was
inspired by other drivers. But i didn't reviewed other places so far.
Regards,
Oleksij
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
