Bluetooth: mark bacmp() and bacpy() as __always_inline

Commit Message

Arnd Bergmann Oct. 9, 2023, 1:48 p.m. UTC

From: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>

These functions are simple wrappers around memcmp() and memcpy(), which
contain compile-time checks for buffer overflow. Something in gcc-13 and
likely other versions makes this trigger a warning when the functions
are not inlined and the compiler misunderstands the buffer length:

In file included from net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:32:
In function 'bacmp',
    inlined from 'hci_conn_request_evt' at net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:3276:7:
include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h:364:16: error: 'memcmp' specified bound 6 exceeds source size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
  364 |         return memcmp(ba1, ba2, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
      |                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Use the __always_inline annotation to ensure that the helpers are
correctly checked. This has no effect on the actual correctness
of the code, but avoids the warning. Since the patch that introduced
the warning is marked for stable backports, this one should also
go that way to avoid introducing build regressions.

Fixes: d70e44fef8621 ("Bluetooth: Reject connection with the device which has same BD_ADDR")
Cc: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lee, Chun-Yi <[e-mail]>
Cc: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[e-mail]>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>
---
 include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

[e-mail] Oct. 9, 2023, 2:37 p.m. UTC | #1

This is automated email and please do not reply to this email!

Dear submitter,

Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list.
This is a CI test results with your patch series:
PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=791315

---Test result---

Test Summary:
CheckPatch                    FAIL      1.10 seconds
GitLint                       FAIL      0.62 seconds
SubjectPrefix                 PASS      0.13 seconds
BuildKernel                   PASS      34.83 seconds
CheckAllWarning               PASS      38.35 seconds
CheckSparse                   PASS      44.57 seconds
CheckSmatch                   PASS      117.20 seconds
BuildKernel32                 PASS      33.68 seconds
TestRunnerSetup               PASS      513.96 seconds
TestRunner_l2cap-tester       PASS      31.42 seconds
TestRunner_iso-tester         PASS      52.83 seconds
TestRunner_bnep-tester        PASS      10.68 seconds
TestRunner_mgmt-tester        PASS      221.69 seconds
TestRunner_rfcomm-tester      PASS      16.26 seconds
TestRunner_sco-tester         PASS      19.74 seconds
TestRunner_ioctl-tester       PASS      18.41 seconds
TestRunner_mesh-tester        PASS      13.55 seconds
TestRunner_smp-tester         PASS      14.56 seconds
TestRunner_userchan-tester    PASS      11.22 seconds
IncrementalBuild              PASS      31.91 seconds

Details
##############################
Test: CheckPatch - FAIL
Desc: Run checkpatch.pl script
Output:
Bluetooth: mark bacmp() and bacpy() as __always_inline
WARNING: Prefer a maximum 75 chars per line (possible unwrapped commit description?)
#71: 
    inlined from 'hci_conn_request_evt' at net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:3276:7:

WARNING: Please use correct Fixes: style 'Fixes: <12 chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'Fixes:  ("Bluetooth: Reject connection with the device which has same BD_ADDR")'
#82: 
Fixes: d70e44fef8621 ("Bluetooth: Reject connection with the device which has same BD_ADDR")

total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 13 lines checked

NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
      mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.

/github/workspace/src/src/13413766.patch has style problems, please review.

NOTE: Ignored message types: UNKNOWN_COMMIT_ID

NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
      them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.


Use of uninitialized value $cid in concatenation (.) or string at /github/workspace/src/src/scripts/checkpatch.pl line 3228.
##############################
Test: GitLint - FAIL
Desc: Run gitlint
Output:
Bluetooth: mark bacmp() and bacpy() as __always_inline

WARNING: I3 - ignore-body-lines: gitlint will be switching from using Python regex 'match' (match beginning) to 'search' (match anywhere) semantics. Please review your ignore-body-lines.regex option accordingly. To remove this warning, set general.regex-style-search=True. More details: https://jorisroovers.github.io/gitlint/configuration/#regex-style-search
13: B1 Line exceeds max length (125>80): "include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h:364:16: error: 'memcmp' specified bound 6 exceeds source size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]"


---
Regards,
Linux Bluetooth

Kees Cook Oct. 9, 2023, 3:36 p.m. UTC | #2

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 03:48:19PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>
> 
> These functions are simple wrappers around memcmp() and memcpy(), which
> contain compile-time checks for buffer overflow. Something in gcc-13 and
> likely other versions makes this trigger a warning when the functions
> are not inlined and the compiler misunderstands the buffer length:
> 
> In file included from net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:32:
> In function 'bacmp',
>     inlined from 'hci_conn_request_evt' at net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:3276:7:
> include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h:364:16: error: 'memcmp' specified bound 6 exceeds source size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
>   364 |         return memcmp(ba1, ba2, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
>       |                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Use the __always_inline annotation to ensure that the helpers are
> correctly checked. This has no effect on the actual correctness
> of the code, but avoids the warning. Since the patch that introduced
> the warning is marked for stable backports, this one should also
> go that way to avoid introducing build regressions.

Yes, good call.

> 
> Fixes: d70e44fef8621 ("Bluetooth: Reject connection with the device which has same BD_ADDR")
> Cc: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Lee, Chun-Yi <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Marcel Holtmann <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>

Acked-by: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>

-Kees

> ---
>  include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
> index 7ffa8c192c3f2..27ee1bf51c235 100644
> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
> @@ -359,11 +359,11 @@ static inline bool bdaddr_type_is_le(u8 type)
>  #define BDADDR_NONE (&(bdaddr_t) {{0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff}})
>  
>  /* Copy, swap, convert BD Address */
> -static inline int bacmp(const bdaddr_t *ba1, const bdaddr_t *ba2)
> +static __always_inline int bacmp(const bdaddr_t *ba1, const bdaddr_t *ba2)
>  {
>  	return memcmp(ba1, ba2, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
>  }
> -static inline void bacpy(bdaddr_t *dst, const bdaddr_t *src)
> +static __always_inline void bacpy(bdaddr_t *dst, const bdaddr_t *src)
>  {
>  	memcpy(dst, src, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
>  }
> -- 
> 2.39.2
>

Arnd Bergmann Oct. 9, 2023, 3:36 p.m. UTC | #3

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>
>
> These functions are simple wrappers around memcmp() and memcpy(), which
> contain compile-time checks for buffer overflow. Something in gcc-13 and
> likely other versions makes this trigger a warning when the functions
> are not inlined and the compiler misunderstands the buffer length:
>
> In file included from net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:32:
> In function 'bacmp',
>     inlined from 'hci_conn_request_evt' at 
> net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:3276:7:
> include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h:364:16: error: 'memcmp' specified 
> bound 6 exceeds source size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
>   364 |         return memcmp(ba1, ba2, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
>       |                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Use the __always_inline annotation to ensure that the helpers are
> correctly checked. This has no effect on the actual correctness
> of the code, but avoids the warning. Since the patch that introduced
> the warning is marked for stable backports, this one should also
> go that way to avoid introducing build regressions.
>
> Fixes: d70e44fef8621 ("Bluetooth: Reject connection with the device 
> which has same BD_ADDR")
> Cc: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Lee, Chun-Yi <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Marcel Holtmann <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>

Sorry, I have to retract this, something went wrong on my
testing and I now see the same problem in some configs regardless
of whether the patch is applied or not.

     Arnd

Kees Cook Oct. 9, 2023, 4:02 p.m. UTC | #4

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:36:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>
> >
> > These functions are simple wrappers around memcmp() and memcpy(), which
> > contain compile-time checks for buffer overflow. Something in gcc-13 and
> > likely other versions makes this trigger a warning when the functions
> > are not inlined and the compiler misunderstands the buffer length:
> >
> > In file included from net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:32:
> > In function 'bacmp',
> >     inlined from 'hci_conn_request_evt' at 
> > net/bluetooth/hci_event.c:3276:7:
> > include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h:364:16: error: 'memcmp' specified 
> > bound 6 exceeds source size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]
> >   364 |         return memcmp(ba1, ba2, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
> >       |                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Use the __always_inline annotation to ensure that the helpers are
> > correctly checked. This has no effect on the actual correctness
> > of the code, but avoids the warning. Since the patch that introduced
> > the warning is marked for stable backports, this one should also
> > go that way to avoid introducing build regressions.
> >
> > Fixes: d70e44fef8621 ("Bluetooth: Reject connection with the device 
> > which has same BD_ADDR")
> > Cc: Kees Cook <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Lee, Chun-Yi <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Marcel Holtmann <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[e-mail]>
> 
> Sorry, I have to retract this, something went wrong on my
> testing and I now see the same problem in some configs regardless
> of whether the patch is applied or not.

Perhaps turn them into macros instead?

Arnd Bergmann Oct. 9, 2023, 6:23 p.m. UTC | #5

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 18:02, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:36:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry, I have to retract this, something went wrong on my
>> testing and I now see the same problem in some configs regardless
>> of whether the patch is applied or not.
>
> Perhaps turn them into macros instead?

I just tried that and still see the problem even with the macro,
so whatever gcc is doing must be a different issue. Maybe it
has correctly found a codepath that triggers this?

If you are able to help debug the issue better,
see these defconfigs for examples:

https://pastebin.com/raw/pC8Lnrn2
https://pastebin.com/raw/yb965unC

     Arnd

Kees Cook Oct. 9, 2023, 7:48 p.m. UTC | #6

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 08:23:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 18:02, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:36:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> 
> >> Sorry, I have to retract this, something went wrong on my
> >> testing and I now see the same problem in some configs regardless
> >> of whether the patch is applied or not.
> >
> > Perhaps turn them into macros instead?
> 
> I just tried that and still see the problem even with the macro,
> so whatever gcc is doing must be a different issue. Maybe it
> has correctly found a codepath that triggers this?
> 
> If you are able to help debug the issue better,
> see these defconfigs for examples:
> 
> https://pastebin.com/raw/pC8Lnrn2
> https://pastebin.com/raw/yb965unC

This seems like a GCC bug. It is complaining about &hdev->bdaddr for
some reason. This silences it:

diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
index 6f4409b4c364..509e86b36576 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
@@ -3266,6 +3266,7 @@ static void hci_conn_request_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, void *data,
 	int mask = hdev->link_mode;
 	struct inquiry_entry *ie;
 	struct hci_conn *conn;
+	bdaddr_t a;
 	__u8 flags = 0;
 
 	bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "bdaddr %pMR type 0x%x", &ev->bdaddr, ev->link_type);
@@ -3273,7 +3274,8 @@ static void hci_conn_request_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, void *data,
 	/* Reject incoming connection from device with same BD ADDR against
 	 * CVE-2020-26555
 	 */
-	if (!bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
+	a = hdev->bdaddr;
+	if (!bacmp(&a, &ev->bdaddr)) {
 		bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "Reject connection with same BD_ADDR %pMR\n",
 			   &ev->bdaddr);
 		hci_reject_conn(hdev, &ev->bdaddr);

:(

Arnd Bergmann Oct. 9, 2023, 8:08 p.m. UTC | #7

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 21:48, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 08:23:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 18:02, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:36:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Sorry, I have to retract this, something went wrong on my
>> >> testing and I now see the same problem in some configs regardless
>> >> of whether the patch is applied or not.
>> >
>> > Perhaps turn them into macros instead?
>> 
>> I just tried that and still see the problem even with the macro,
>> so whatever gcc is doing must be a different issue. Maybe it
>> has correctly found a codepath that triggers this?
>> 
>> If you are able to help debug the issue better,
>> see these defconfigs for examples:
>> 
>> https://pastebin.com/raw/pC8Lnrn2
>> https://pastebin.com/raw/yb965unC
>
> This seems like a GCC bug. It is complaining about &hdev->bdaddr for
> some reason. This silences it:
>
> -	if (!bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
> +	a = hdev->bdaddr;
> +	if (!bacmp(&a, &ev->bdaddr)) {

Right, I see this addresses all instances. I tried another thing
and this also seems to address them for me:

--- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
@@ -3273,7 +3273,7 @@ static void hci_conn_request_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, void *data,
        /* Reject incoming connection from device with same BD ADDR against
         * CVE-2020-26555
         */
-       if (!bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
+       if (hdev && !bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
                bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "Reject connection with same BD_ADDR %pMR\n",
                           &ev->bdaddr);
                hci_reject_conn(hdev, &ev->bdaddr);

and also this one does the trick:

--- a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
+++ b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
@@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ void bt_err_ratelimited(const char *fmt, ...);
 #define BT_DBG(fmt, ...)       pr_debug(fmt "\n", ##__VA_ARGS__)
 #endif
 
-#define bt_dev_name(hdev) ((hdev) ? (hdev)->name : "null")
+#define bt_dev_name(hdev) ((hdev)->name)
 
 #define bt_dev_info(hdev, fmt, ...)                            \
        BT_INFO("%s: " fmt, bt_dev_name(hdev), ##__VA_ARGS__)

So what is actually going on is that the bt_dev_dbg() introduces
the idea that hdev might be NULL because of the check.

     Arnd

Kees Cook Oct. 9, 2023, 8:15 p.m. UTC | #8

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 10:08:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 21:48, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 08:23:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 18:02, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:36:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> Sorry, I have to retract this, something went wrong on my
> >> >> testing and I now see the same problem in some configs regardless
> >> >> of whether the patch is applied or not.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps turn them into macros instead?
> >> 
> >> I just tried that and still see the problem even with the macro,
> >> so whatever gcc is doing must be a different issue. Maybe it
> >> has correctly found a codepath that triggers this?
> >> 
> >> If you are able to help debug the issue better,
> >> see these defconfigs for examples:
> >> 
> >> https://pastebin.com/raw/pC8Lnrn2
> >> https://pastebin.com/raw/yb965unC
> >
> > This seems like a GCC bug. It is complaining about &hdev->bdaddr for
> > some reason. This silences it:
> >
> > -	if (!bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
> > +	a = hdev->bdaddr;
> > +	if (!bacmp(&a, &ev->bdaddr)) {
> 
> Right, I see this addresses all instances. I tried another thing
> and this also seems to address them for me:
> 
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> @@ -3273,7 +3273,7 @@ static void hci_conn_request_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, void *data,
>         /* Reject incoming connection from device with same BD ADDR against
>          * CVE-2020-26555
>          */
> -       if (!bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
> +       if (hdev && !bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
>                 bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "Reject connection with same BD_ADDR %pMR\n",
>                            &ev->bdaddr);
>                 hci_reject_conn(hdev, &ev->bdaddr);
> 
> and also this one does the trick:
> 
> --- a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
> +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
> @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ void bt_err_ratelimited(const char *fmt, ...);
>  #define BT_DBG(fmt, ...)       pr_debug(fmt "\n", ##__VA_ARGS__)
>  #endif
>  
> -#define bt_dev_name(hdev) ((hdev) ? (hdev)->name : "null")
> +#define bt_dev_name(hdev) ((hdev)->name)
>  
>  #define bt_dev_info(hdev, fmt, ...)                            \
>         BT_INFO("%s: " fmt, bt_dev_name(hdev), ##__VA_ARGS__)
> 
> So what is actually going on is that the bt_dev_dbg() introduces
> the idea that hdev might be NULL because of the check.

Oh thank you for finding that. Yeah, it looked to me like it thought
hdev was NULL, but I couldn't find where. :)

I think the best work-around here is your "hdev && " addition.

Luiz Augusto von Dentz Oct. 10, 2023, 12:01 a.m. UTC | #9

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 1:15 PM Kees Cook <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 10:08:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 21:48, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 08:23:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 18:02, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:36:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, at 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sorry, I have to retract this, something went wrong on my
> > >> >> testing and I now see the same problem in some configs regardless
> > >> >> of whether the patch is applied or not.
> > >> >
> > >> > Perhaps turn them into macros instead?
> > >>
> > >> I just tried that and still see the problem even with the macro,
> > >> so whatever gcc is doing must be a different issue. Maybe it
> > >> has correctly found a codepath that triggers this?
> > >>
> > >> If you are able to help debug the issue better,
> > >> see these defconfigs for examples:
> > >>
> > >> https://pastebin.com/raw/pC8Lnrn2
> > >> https://pastebin.com/raw/yb965unC
> > >
> > > This seems like a GCC bug. It is complaining about &hdev->bdaddr for
> > > some reason. This silences it:
> > >
> > > -   if (!bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
> > > +   a = hdev->bdaddr;
> > > +   if (!bacmp(&a, &ev->bdaddr)) {
> >
> > Right, I see this addresses all instances. I tried another thing
> > and this also seems to address them for me:
> >
> > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
> > @@ -3273,7 +3273,7 @@ static void hci_conn_request_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev, void *data,
> >         /* Reject incoming connection from device with same BD ADDR against
> >          * CVE-2020-26555
> >          */
> > -       if (!bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
> > +       if (hdev && !bacmp(&hdev->bdaddr, &ev->bdaddr)) {
> >                 bt_dev_dbg(hdev, "Reject connection with same BD_ADDR %pMR\n",
> >                            &ev->bdaddr);
> >                 hci_reject_conn(hdev, &ev->bdaddr);
> >
> > and also this one does the trick:
> >
> > --- a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
> > +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
> > @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ void bt_err_ratelimited(const char *fmt, ...);
> >  #define BT_DBG(fmt, ...)       pr_debug(fmt "\n", ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >  #endif
> >
> > -#define bt_dev_name(hdev) ((hdev) ? (hdev)->name : "null")
> > +#define bt_dev_name(hdev) ((hdev)->name)
> >
> >  #define bt_dev_info(hdev, fmt, ...)                            \
> >         BT_INFO("%s: " fmt, bt_dev_name(hdev), ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >
> > So what is actually going on is that the bt_dev_dbg() introduces
> > the idea that hdev might be NULL because of the check.
>
> Oh thank you for finding that. Yeah, it looked to me like it thought
> hdev was NULL, but I couldn't find where. :)
>
> I think the best work-around here is your "hdev && " addition.

Perhaps we could something like:

#define bt_dev_bacmp(hdev, bdaddr) ((hdev) ? bacmp(&(hdev)->bdaddr,
bdaddr) : -EINVAL)

Or the fact that we test for hdev makes the compiler assume it could
NULL? If I recall correctly we did that because in some codepaths
there is actually no hdev to use so it is passed as NULL.

> --
> Kees Cook

Patch

diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
index 7ffa8c192c3f2..27ee1bf51c235 100644
--- a/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
+++ b/include/net/bluetooth/bluetooth.h
@@ -359,11 +359,11 @@  static inline bool bdaddr_type_is_le(u8 type)
 #define BDADDR_NONE (&(bdaddr_t) {{0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff}})
 
 /* Copy, swap, convert BD Address */
-static inline int bacmp(const bdaddr_t *ba1, const bdaddr_t *ba2)
+static __always_inline int bacmp(const bdaddr_t *ba1, const bdaddr_t *ba2)
 {
 	return memcmp(ba1, ba2, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
 }
-static inline void bacpy(bdaddr_t *dst, const bdaddr_t *src)
+static __always_inline void bacpy(bdaddr_t *dst, const bdaddr_t *src)
 {
 	memcpy(dst, src, sizeof(bdaddr_t));
 }