linux-kernel - Re: [Patch V2 2/2] iommu: remove sysfs_link to device in iommu

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: <20160324145121.GA30863@vultr.guest>
Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:51:21 +0000
From:	Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:	Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, treding@...dia.com,
	joro@...tes.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch V2 2/2] iommu: remove sysfs_link to device in
 iommu_group/devices when failed

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:04:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 22:25:11 +0000
>Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> The original code forgets to remove the sysfs_link to a device in
>> iommu_group/devices directory, when the creation fails or conflicts on the
>> name.
>> 
>> This patch tries to remove the sysfs_link on the failure.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/iommu/iommu.c |    1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
>> index 2696a38..8f480ba 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c
>> @@ -403,6 +403,7 @@ rename:
>>  	ret = sysfs_create_link_nowarn(group->devices_kobj,
>>  				       &dev->kobj, device->name);
>>  	if (ret) {
>> +		sysfs_remove_link(group->devices_kobj, device->name);
>>  		kfree(device->name);
>>  		if (ret == -EEXIST && i >= 0) {
>>  			/*
>
>If we failed to create a link, potentially due to a conflicting link
>already present, then aren't we arbitrarily removing that conflicting
>link with this change?  If sysfs_create_link_nowarn() fails then we
>haven't created a link of our own to remove.  This looks wrong.  Thanks,
>

Hmm... you are right, that's my bad.

Do you have comments on the first patch?

>Alex

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me