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, 09 Mar 2015 13:56:28 +0100
From:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
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

On 03/09/2015 01:32 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> (Sorry for the late reply as I was out of town!)

np :)

> 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.

Submitting patches ported to -stable would be a second step. You don't
have to, but I'd appreciate it.

> 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.

Ack, or bugfix, janitorial then optimization. Please use
linux-can-fixes-for-4.0-20150309 (which include 1 and 2) as your base.

Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)