linux-kernel - Re: intel_cacheinfo: potential NULL dereference?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:11:04 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: intel_cacheinfo: potential NULL dereference?

On 06/22/2010 03:08 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 07:20:14AM -0400
> 
>> On 06/22/2010 01:18 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> Stanse found, that this_leaf->l3 is dereferenced at <<1>>, but checked
>>> for being NULL at <<2>>. Is the check superfluous or the dev assignment
>>> should go after the check?
>>
>> Oh, and I have another report with same symptoms for show_cache_disable.
> 
> Right, so I have a patch in tip/x86/cpu
> (8cc1176e5de534d55cb26ff0cef3fd0d6ad8c3c0) which reorganizes
> and cleans up that code. With it, all possible checks land in
> amd_check_l3_disable() and if they have all been passed, the PCI dev is
> guaranteed to be properly set. So no need for sprinkling additional NULL
> checks in the code.
> 
> How's that?

Looks good.

thanks,
-- 
js
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/