On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 10:46:37 +0100
Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 26/11/2024 09:59, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:16:10PM +0100, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> >> The 'scan' local struct is used to push data to user space from a
> >> triggered buffer, but it has a hole between the sample (unsigned int)
> >> and the timestamp. This hole is never initialized.
> >>
> >> Initialize the struct to zero before using it to avoid pushing
> >> uninitialized information to userspace.
> >>
> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Fixes: a9306887eba4 ("iio: adc: ti-ads1119: Add driver")
> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1119.c | 2 ++
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1119.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1119.c
> >> index e9d9d4d46d38..2615a275acb3 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1119.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1119.c
> >> @@ -506,6 +506,8 @@ static irqreturn_t ads1119_trigger_handler(int irq, void *private)
> >> unsigned int index;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> + memset(&scan, 0, sizeof(scan));
> >
> > Did you consider adding a reserved field after sample and just
> > initializing that one to zero?
> >
> > It seems a trivial optimization not adding much value, but I thought about
> > it, so I'd like to be sure you considered it.
> >
> > In any case, the change is fine.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Francesco
> >
>
> Hi Francesco, thanks for your review.
>
> In this particular case where unsigned int is used for the sample, the
> padding would _in theory_ depend on the architecture. The size of the
> unsigned int is usually 4 bytes, but the standard only specifies that it
> must be able to contain values in the [0, 65535] range i.e. 2 bytes.
> That is indeed theory, and I don't know if there is a real case where a
> new version of Linux is able to run on an architecture that uses 2 bytes
> for an int. I guess there is not, but better safe than sorry.
Using an unsigned int here is a bug as well as we should present consistent
formatted data whatever the architecture.
>
> We could be more specific with u32 for the sample and then add the
> reserved field, but I would still prefer a memset() for this small
> struct. Adding and initializing a reserved field looks a bit artificial
> to me, especially for such marginal gains.
Issue with reserved fields is we would have to be very very careful to spot them
all. A memset avoids that care being needed.
Jonathan
>
> Moreover, the common practice (at least in IIO)is a plain memset() to
> initialize struct holes, and such common patterns are easier to maintain :)
>
> Best regards,
> Javier Carrasco
