linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev->power.wakeirq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 7 Jul 2015 06:17:07 +0200
From:	Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>
To:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, Tony Lindgren <tmlind@...mide.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base: power: wakeirq: don't leak dev->power.wakeirq

Hi

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:06:17PM +0200, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2015 8:01 PM, "Felipe Balbi" <balbi@...com> wrote:
>> >
>> > on a first call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(), if it
>> > fails, it will leave dev->power.wakeirq set to a
>> > dangling pointer. Instead, let's clear it to make
>> > sure a subsequent call to dev_pm_attach_wake_irq()
>> > has chance to succeed.
>> >
>> > Cc: Tony Lindgren <tmlind@...mide.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
>> > index 7470004ca810..394d250a1ad8 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
>> > @@ -50,9 +50,16 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct device *dev,
>> int irq,
>> >
>> >         err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq);
>> >         if (err)
>> > -               return err;
>> > +               goto err_cleanup;
>> >
>> >         return 0;
>> > +
>> > +err_cleanup:
>> > +       spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags);
>> > +       dev->power.wakeirq = NULL;
>> > +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags);
>> > +
>>
>> Why here and not in the fuction that return the error?
>
> because the field was set here, why would I clear it elsewhere ?
>

Clear now and even more from the other patch proposal.

Michael

> --
> balbi



-- 
| Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi                     Amarula Solutions BV |
| COO  -  Founder                                      Cruquiuskade 47 |
| +31(0)851119172                                 Amsterdam 1018 AM NL |
|                  [`as] http://www.amarulasolutions.com               |
--
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/