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: <0f9d668e8ed77ef17ba029e15b52fa817e49dbdb.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 09 Dec 2018 19:20:18 -0800
From:   Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc:     bianpan2016@....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 Sun, 2018-12-09 at 21:45 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 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.
> 
Agree.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> Thanks,
>