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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:53:03 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com> To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> Cc: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: partitions: Handle add_mtd_device() failures gracefully Hi Geert, Sorry for the late reply. On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 15:26:20 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:59 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com> wrote: > > On 04/09/2018 02:25 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> Currently add_mtd_device() failures are plainly ignored, which may lead > >> to kernel crashes later. > > >> Fix this by ignoring and freeing partitions that failed to add in > >> add_mtd_partitions(). The same issue is present in mtd_add_partition(), > >> so fix that as well. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be> > >> --- > >> I don't know if it is worthwhile factoring out the common handling. > >> > >> Should allocate_partition() fail instead? There's a comment saying > >> "let's register it anyway to preserve ordering". > > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdpart.c > > >> @@ -746,7 +753,15 @@ int add_mtd_partitions(struct mtd_info *master, > >> list_add(&slave->list, &mtd_partitions); > >> mutex_unlock(&mtd_partitions_mutex); > >> > >> - add_mtd_device(&slave->mtd); > >> + ret = add_mtd_device(&slave->mtd); > >> + if (ret) { > >> + mutex_lock(&mtd_partitions_mutex); > >> + list_del(&slave->list); > >> + mutex_unlock(&mtd_partitions_mutex); > >> + free_partition(slave); > >> + continue; > >> + } > > > > Why is the partition even in the list in the first place ? Can we avoid > > adding it rather than adding and removing it ? > > Hence my question "Should allocate_partition() fail instead?". I'd prefer this option too. Can you prepare a new version doing that? Thanks, Boris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists