On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:35:33PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> In a previous commit 69403bad97aa, sta->sdata can be NULL, and thus it
> should be checked before being used.
Please run checkpatch on this patch, and correct the commit description
style.
./scripts/checkpatch.pl -g HEAD
ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 69403bad97aa ("wifi: mac80211: sdata can be NULL during AMPDU start")'
#6:
In a previous commit 69403bad97aa, sta->sdata can be NULL, and thus it
>
> However, in the same call stack, sta->sdata is also used in the
> following functions:
>
> ieee80211_ba_session_work()
> ___ieee80211_stop_rx_ba_session(sta)
> ht_dbg(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
> sdata_info(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
> ieee80211_send_delba(sta->sdata, ...) -> No check
> ___ieee80211_start_rx_ba_session(sta)
> ht_dbg(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
> ht_dbg_ratelimited(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
> ieee80211_tx_ba_session_handle_start(sta)
> sdata = sta->sdata; if (!sdata) -> Add check by previous commit
> ___ieee80211_stop_tx_ba_session(sdata)
> ht_dbg(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
> ieee80211_start_tx_ba_cb(sdata)
> sdata = sta->sdata; local = sdata->local -> No check
> ieee80211_stop_tx_ba_cb(sdata)
> ht_dbg(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
I wonder if it would be better to teach ht_* do do nothing
if the first argument is NULL.
Also, are these theoretical bugs?
Or something that has been observed?
And has a reproducer?
> Thus, to avoid possible null-pointer dereferences, the related checks
> should be added.
>
> These results are reported by a static tool designed by myself.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: TOTE Robot <baijiaju@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I see 4 copies of this patch in a few minutes.
As per the FAQ [1], please leave at least 24h between posts of a patch.
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html
