linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 -next] tty: ipwireless: Fix potential NULL pointer dereference

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: <20190131123253.GC2900@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:32:53 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jikos@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -next] tty: ipwireless: Fix potential NULL pointer
 dereference

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 04:58:30PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 30. 01. 19, 11:30, YueHaibing wrote:
> > There is a potential NULL pointer dereference in case
> > alloc_ctrl_packet() fails and returns NULL.
> > 
> > Fixes: 099dc4fb6265 ("ipwireless: driver for PC Card 3G/UMTS modem")
> > Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
> > ---
> > v2: fix return value
> > ---
> >  drivers/tty/ipwireless/hardware.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/ipwireless/hardware.c b/drivers/tty/ipwireless/hardware.c
> > index b0baa4c..1e21ae3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/ipwireless/hardware.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/ipwireless/hardware.c
> > @@ -1516,6 +1516,8 @@ static void ipw_send_setup_packet(struct ipw_hardware *hw)
> >  			sizeof(struct ipw_setup_get_version_query_packet),
> >  			ADDR_SETUP_PROT, TL_PROTOCOLID_SETUP,
> >  			TL_SETUP_SIGNO_GET_VERSION_QRY);
> > +	if (!ver_packet)
> > +		return;
> 
> LGTM, the timer will retry 30 times, ticking every second.

This should be mentioned in the changelog though, it's not obvious at
all why just returning after a failure is ok and that the packet will be
resent.