linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: check return value of idr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190410163127.GG3952@e107155-lin>
Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 17:31:27 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
Cc:     pakki001@....edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: check return value of idr_find

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 03:48:22PM -0500, Kangjie Lu wrote:

You should mark this v2 id you changed any code or commit message or
added any tags. Just FYI for future.

> Thanks for Steven Price's review of this patch. In the current code,
> idr_find won't return NULL because the SCMI_PROTOCOL_BASE id must 
> exist. However, it might return NULL in the future code if the check
> is on another node while processing the children in subsequent calls 
> to scmi_mbox_chan_setup().

I don't understand the reference here to future code here. If you have
out of tree code that results in such a scenario, please share or
provide the details on that.

As I mentioned in previous mail, I would bail out much earlier if
SCMI_PROTOCOL_BASE is not allocated IDR and not reach to this point.
We continue even if scmi_create_protocol_device fails for few child
devices.

--
Regards,
Sudeep