[lvc-project] [PATCH] usb: typec: fix potential NULL dereference

[Heikki Krogerus]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 09:56:51AM +0300, Maxim Korotkov wrote:
> On 18.04.2023 09:16, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:50:03PM +0300, Maxim Korotkov wrote:
> > > The pointer 'adev' was being dereferenced before being checked for NULL
> > > in the 'type_alt mode_enter()' and 'type_alt mode_exit()' functions.
> > > Although this is a hypothetical issue, it's better to move the pointer
> > > assignment after the NULL check to avoid any potential problems.
> > > 
> > > Found by Linux Verification Center with Svace static analyzer.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 8a37d87d72f0 ("usb: typec: Bus type for alternate modes")
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Korotkov <korotkov.maxim.s at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/usb/typec/bus.c | 13 +++++++++----
> > >   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/bus.c b/drivers/usb/typec/bus.c
> > > index 098f0efaa58d..ae0aca8f33db 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/bus.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/bus.c
> > > @@ -125,13 +125,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(typec_altmode_notify);
> > >    */
> > >   int typec_altmode_enter(struct typec_altmode *adev, u32 *vdo)
> > >   {
> > > -	struct altmode *partner = to_altmode(adev)->partner;
> > > -	struct typec_altmode *pdev = &partner->adev;
> > > +	struct altmode *partner;
> > > +	struct typec_altmode *pdev;
> > >   	int ret;
> > >   	if (!adev || adev->active)
> > >   		return 0;
> > > +	partner = to_altmode(adev)->partner;
> > > +	pdev = &partner->adev;
> > 
> > As you point out, the original code is still fine here, we check before
> > we actually use these values.
> > 
> > Also, can adev every actually be NULL?  In looking at the code paths, I
> > can't see how that could happen.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> I agree that the adev will most likely never be NULL, but usually this
> pointer is checked before usage (for example in typec_altmode_notify() or
> typec_altmode_vdm()). It is a little odd that in these functions it utilized
> before check. Is it just extra check that can be removed?

Please go ahead and remove it.

thanks,

-- 
heikki