linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: audio: Add missing unlock in gbaudio_dapm_free

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:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:40:30 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     "wanghai (M)" <wanghai38@...wei.com>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Vaibhav Agarwal <vaibhav.sr@...il.com>, elder@...nel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Greer <mgreer@...malcreek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: audio: Add missing unlock in
 gbaudio_dapm_free_controls()

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 05:19:25PM +0800, wanghai (M) wrote:
> 
> 在 2020/12/4 16:40, Johan Hovold 写道:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:13:50AM +0800, Wang Hai wrote:
> >> Add the missing unlock before return from function
> >> gbaudio_dapm_free_controls() in the error handling case.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 510e340efe0c ("staging: greybus: audio: Add helper APIs for dynamic audio module")
> >> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c | 1 +
> >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c
> >> index 237531ba60f3..293675dbea10 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c
> >> @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ int gbaudio_dapm_free_controls(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
> >>   		if (!w) {
> >>   			dev_err(dapm->dev, "%s: widget not found\n",
> >>   				widget->name);
> >> +			mutex_unlock(&dapm->card->dapm_mutex);
> >>   			return -EINVAL;
> >>   		}
> >>   		widget++;
> > This superficially looks correct, but there seems to be another bug in
> > this function. It can be used free an array of widgets, but if one of
> > them isn't found we just leak the rest. Perhaps that return should
> > rather be "widget++; continue;".
> >
> I think this is a good idea, should I send a v2 patch?

Let's just wait a bit and see what Vaibhav or Mark says first.

Johan