On 9/24/2025 8:48 AM, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote:
> On 9/18/2025 7:50 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> Re-order these checks to check if "i" is a valid array index before using
>> it. This prevents a potential off by one read access.
>>
>> Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver")
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>> index cc17a48d0ab7..ac134452cc9c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static int qcomtee_params_from_args(struct tee_param *params,
>> }
>>
>> /* Release any IO and OO objects not processed. */
>> - for (; u[i].type && i < num_params; i++) {
>> + for (; i < num_params && u[i].type; i++) {
>> if (u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_OO ||
>> u[i].type == QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_IO)
>> qcomtee_object_put(u[i].o);
>
> This is not required, considering the sequence of clean up, this
> would never happen. `i` at least have been accessed once in the
> switch above.
>
> Regards,
> Amir
>
>
Also, size of u is always num_params + 1 for the ending 0.
(basically means `i < num_params` can be removed).
Anyway, it does not hurt :).
Regards,
Amir
