On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 04:32:50PM +0800, Haimin Zhang wrote: > There isn't enough check parameter `wIndex` in the function > `ehci_brcm_hub_control`;due to the size of array `port_status` > is 15, so it may lead to out of bounds. Odd use of ';' And have you seen this get out of bounds? If so, how? > > Signed-off-by: Haimin Zhang <tcs_kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: TCS Robot <tcs_robot@xxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by goes below the reported-by lines. And why are these 2 patches not "threaded" properly in email. How did you send them? Also, your "From" line does not match your signed-off-by line, so I could not take these at all even if this was ok. > --- > drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c > index d3626bfa966b..a1e3290e5459 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-brcm.c > @@ -62,8 +62,11 @@ static int ehci_brcm_hub_control( > u32 __iomem *status_reg; > unsigned long flags; > int retval, irq_disabled = 0; > + u32 temp; > > - status_reg = &ehci->regs->port_status[(wIndex & 0xff) - 1]; > + temp = (wIndex & 0xff) - 1; > + if (temp < ports) > + status_reg = &ehci->regs->port_status[temp]; What if the test fails? Should you do something about that? status_reg is now uninitialized, doesn't the code fail now? How did you test this? thanks, greg k-h
