linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] can: kvaser_usb: Avoid double free on URB submission failures

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:	Mon, 9 Mar 2015 08:32:54 -0400
From:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Olivier Sobrie <olivier@...rie.be>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
	Andri Yngvason <andri.yngvason@...el.com>,
	Linux-CAN <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] can: kvaser_usb: Avoid double free on URB submission
 failures

Hi Marc,

(Sorry for the late reply as I was out of town!)

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 10:15:45AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 02/26/2015 04:20 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > From: Ahmed S. Darwish <ahmed.darwish@...eo.com>
> > 
> > Upon a URB submission failure, the driver calls usb_free_urb()
> > but then manually frees the URB buffer by itself.  Meanwhile
> > usb_free_urb() has alredy freed out that transfer buffer since
> > we're the only code path holding a reference to this URB.
> > 
> > Remove two of such invalid manual free().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <ahmed.darwish@...eo.com>
> 
> Applied 1+2 and added stable on Cc. Can you please shuffle the remaining
> patches, so that patch 5 comes first, then 4 and 3 as the last patch. As
> 5 is a bugfix it should go into stable, while 3 isn't.
>
> You can base your series on the can/testing branch.
> 

Did not care much about the bugfixes order this time as the patches
themselves will not apply cleanly (or at all) to -stable due to the
addition of UsbCAN-II code, which all -stable kernels do not have.
Thus I guess I'll need to submit a different patch series for -stable
with patches 1, 2, and 5 -- rebased.

Nonetheless, you're correct that having the bugfixes (1,2,5), then the
optimization (4), then the janitorial fix (3) is the logical order for
history & bisection sake. So.. I'll re-order the patches, individually
test with the new order, and re-submit over can/testing.

Thanks,
Darwish
--
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/