Re: [PATCH] tee: qcomtee: add missing va_end in early return qcomtee_object_user_init()

Hello Amir,

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 04:36:20PM +1000, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 5/15/2026 3:23 PM, Robertus Diawan Chris wrote:
> > Hello Amir,
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 11:31:50AM +1000, Amirreza Zarrabi wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2026 7:10 PM, Robertus Diawan Chris wrote:
> >>> qcomtee_object_user_init() is a variadic function and when the function
> >>> return because there's no dispatch callback in QCOMTEE_OBJECT_TYPE_CB
> >>> case, there's no va_end to cleanup "ap" object initialized by va_start
> >>> and that can cause undefined behavior. So make sure to use va_end before
> >>> returning the error code when there's no dispatch callback.
> >>>
> >>> This is reported by Coverity Scan as "Missing varargs init or cleanup".
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: d6e290837e50 ("tee: add Qualcomm TEE driver")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Robertus Diawan Chris <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> I don't have the device, so I am not sure how to test this change.
> >>> Thank you.
> >>>
> >>>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c | 8 ++++++--
> >>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c
> >>> index b1cb50e434f0..901a31e8201f 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/core.c
> >>> @@ -306,8 +306,10 @@ int qcomtee_object_user_init(struct qcomtee_object *object,
> >>>  		break;
> >>>  	case QCOMTEE_OBJECT_TYPE_CB:
> >>>  		object->ops = ops;
> >>> -		if (!object->ops->dispatch)
> >>> -			return -EINVAL;
> >>> +		if (!object->ops->dispatch) {
> >>> +			ret = -EINVAL;
> >>> +			goto out;
> >>> +		}
> >>>
> >>>  		/* If failed, "no-name". */
> >>>  		object->name = kvasprintf_const(GFP_KERNEL, fmt, ap);
> >>> @@ -320,6 +322,8 @@ int qcomtee_object_user_init(struct qcomtee_object *object,
> >>>  	default:
> >>>  		ret = -EINVAL;
> >>>  	}
> >>> +
> >>> +out:
> >>>  	va_end(ap);
> >>>
> >>>  	return ret;
> >>>
> >>> base-commit: 5d6919055dec134de3c40167a490f33c74c12581
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Forgot to mention: how about using a break instead of a goto.
> >
> > Oh right. In this case, using "break" statement is enough. I will send
> > the v2 of the patch. Maybe something like this:
> >
> > 	if (!object->ops->dispatch) {
> > 		ret = -EINVAL;
> > 		break;
> > 	}
> >
> > and then remove the "out" label.
> >
> >> Then feel free to add Reviewed-by.
> >
> > I want to confirm first, if I changed the patch using "break" statement,
> > do I need to add "Reviewed-by" tag in the v2 of the patch or not? I am
> > still not sure when to add "Reviewed-by" tag, like can we add
> > "Reviewed-by" tag when we changed the patch?
> >
>
> This is a small change. You can add the tag when sending your v2
> as long as you include the change.

I see. Alright, I will send the patch v2 with the change and the
"Reviewed-by" tag later. Thanks.

Best regards,
Robertus Diawan Chris