linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] HID: intel-ish-hid: fixes incorrect error handling

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: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1812092144440.17216@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date:   Sun, 9 Dec 2018 21:45:39 +0100 (CET)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
cc:     bianpan2016@....com,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: intel-ish-hid: fixes incorrect error handling

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:

> > The memory chunk allocated by hid_allocate_device() should be released
> > by hid_destroy_device(), not kfree().
> >
> > Fixes: 0b28cb4bcb1("HID: intel-ish-hid: ISH HID client driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <bianpan2016@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c
> > index cd23903..e918d78 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ishtp-hid.c
> > @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ int ishtp_hid_probe(unsigned int cur_hid_dev,
> >  err_hid_device:
> >         kfree(hid_data);
> >  err_hid_data:
> > -       kfree(hid);
> > +       hid_destroy_device(hid);
> 
> Looks good to me. Srinivas, any comments?
> FWIW:
> Reviewed-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
> 
> Jiri, do you think we should send this one as 4.20/fixes material or
> wait for 4.21?

Given that this has been around since 4.9, I wouldn't be devastated if it 
lands only in next merge window. So I'd just put it to 4.20/fixes and wait 
for other more serious trigger for sending that to Linus eventually.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs