linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi/ufshcd: Fix NULL pointer dereference for in ufshcd

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:   Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:41:38 -0700
From:   Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
To:     vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org
Cc:     jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        subhashj@...eaurora.org, mka@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi/ufshcd: Fix NULL pointer dereference for in ufshcd_init

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:48 AM Vivek Gautam
<vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Error paths in ufshcd_init() ufshcd_hba_exit() killed clk_scaling
> workqueue when the workqueue is actually created quite late in
> ufshcd_init().
> So, we end up getting NULL pointer dereference in such error paths.
> Fix this by moving clk_scaling initialization and kill codes to
> two separate methods, and call them at required places.
>
> Fixes: 401f1e4490ee ("scsi: ufs: don't suspend clock scaling during clock
> gating")
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
> Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> Cc: Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@...eaurora.org>
> Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> Cc: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
> Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
> ---
>
> Bjorn, Subhash,
> I am not certain of some of these devfreq, and clk_scaling bits
> that are moved as part of this patch. Please help in reviewing the
> change in the light of these features, and related sequence should
> be followed.
> Thanks.
>

You're right, there is a lot of logic moving around here. I think this
looks okay to me.

Reviewed-by: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>