linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] TTY: n_gsm, fix false positive WARN

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]

Message-Id: <20160301050124.GA19068@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 01 Mar 2016 05:01:25 +0000
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:	xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TTY: n_gsm, fix false positive WARN_ON

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 05:16:15PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:32 AM, xinhui <xinhui@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > hi, Jiri
> >
> > On 2015/11/25 17:56, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 11/25/2015, 07:32 AM, xinhui wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      This warning should blame on commit 5a640967 ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a
> >>> memory leak in gsmld_open()").
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, yes, I messed up the "Fixes" line then. It should write:
> >> Fixes: 5a640967 ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a memory leak in gsmld_open()")
> >>
> > that's Okay. :)
> >
> >>> I have one confusion. As there is field gsm->num to store the index of
> >>> gsm_mux[]. so in gsm_cleanup_mux(), why we still use for-loop to find
> >>> this mux?
> >>>
> >>> In error handle path, for example, the call trace in this patch, as we
> >>> failed to activate it and the
> >>> gsm->num is invalid(and the value is 0). we can just modify the codes
> >>> like below:
> >>>
> >>> if(gsm_mux[gsm->num] == gsm)
> >>> ....other work
> >>> else
> >>>      return;
> >>>
> >>> I think it would work, and the logic is correct. Or I just miss
> >>> something important?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yup, it looks like a cleanup. Could you prepare a separate patch for that?
> >>
> > yes, I will do that :)
> >
> >> Something like this:
> >>          /* open failed before registering => nothing to do */
> >>          if (gsm_mux[gsm->num] != gsm)
> >>                return;
> >>          spin_lock(&gsm_mux_lock);
> >>          gsm_mux[gsm->num] = NULL;
> >>          spin_unlock(&gsm_mux_lock);
> >>
> > looks pretty good, thanks.
> 
> 
> This is still not merged and fires regularly for me. Can we please merge it?

merge what?  I don't see any patch here or in my queue for this :(