linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI: NULL pointer checking

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:   Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:42:39 +0000
From:   "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
To:     Zhenhua <lizhenhuajiyang@....com>,
        "devel@...ica.org" <devel@...ica.org>,
        "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI: NULL pointer checking



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhenhua [mailto:lizhenhuajiyang@....com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 6:35 AM
> To: devel@...ica.org; Moore, Robert <robert.moore@...el.com>; Zheng, Lv
> <lv.zheng@...el.com>; Wysocki, Rafael J <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>;
> lenb@...nel.org; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: Zhenhua <lizhenhuajiyang@....com>
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI: NULL pointer checking
> 
> These two pointers should be checked, for some broken devices they may
> cause system crash.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhenhua <lizhenhuajiyang@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c
> b/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c index f2733f51ca8d..151abb0ef4d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsaccess.c
> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ acpi_ns_lookup(union acpi_generic_state *scope_info,
>  			return_ACPI_STATUS(AE_AML_INTERNAL);
>  		}
> 
> -		if (!(flags & ACPI_NS_PREFIX_IS_SCOPE)) {
> +		if ((!prefix_node) && (!(flags & ACPI_NS_PREFIX_IS_SCOPE))) {
[Moore, Robert] 

Is there an actual case where the original code failed?



>  			/*
>  			 * This node might not be a actual "scope" node (such as
> a
>  			 * Device/Method, etc.)  It could be a Package or other
> object @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ acpi_ns_lookup(union acpi_generic_state
> *scope_info,
>  		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_NAMES,
>  				  "Null Pathname (Zero segments), Flags=%X\n",
>  				  flags));
> -	} else {
> +	} else if (path) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Name pointer is valid (and must be in internal name
> format)
>  		 *
> --
> 2.14.1
>