linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.4 117/203] rsi: fix potential null dereference in rsi

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: <20200204100016.GA1088789@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Feb 2020 10:00:16 +0000
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
        Siva Rebbagondla <siva8118@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 117/203] rsi: fix potential null dereference in
 rsi_probe()

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 09:33:32AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:17:14AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
> > 
> > commit f170d44bc4ec2feae5f6206980e7ae7fbf0432a0 upstream.
> > 
> > The id pointer can be NULL in rsi_probe(). It is checked everywhere except
> > for the else branch in the idProduct condition. The patch adds NULL check
> > before the id dereference in the rsi_dbg() call.
> > 
> > Fixes: 54fdb318c111 ("rsi: add new device model for 9116")
> > Cc: Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>
> > Cc: Siva Rebbagondla <siva8118@...il.com>
> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> 
> This commit is bogus and was reverted shortly after it was applied in
> order to prevent autosel from picking it up for stable (reverted by
> c5dcf8f0e850 ("Revert "rsi: fix potential null dereference in
> rsi_probe()"")).
> 
> The revert has now been picked up by Sasha, but shouldn't an
> explicit revert in the same pull-request prevent a bad patch from being
> backported in the first place? Seems like something that could be
> scripted. But perhaps the net-stable oddities come into play here.

This was my fault, I picked it up, and didn't run a "has this patch been
reverted" type search on them.  I'll add that to my workflow, sorry.

greg k-h