linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Fix dereference null cpufreq policy

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: <73a7db77-c4c7-029f-fd8a-080911fde41e@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Mar 2020 09:39:24 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Fix dereference null cpufreq policy

On 02/03/20 09:12, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-03-20, 08:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 02/03/20 08:15, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
>>>
>>> cpufreq policy which is get by cpufreq_cpu_get() can be NULL if it is failure,
>>> this patch takes care of it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: aaec7c03de (KVM: x86: avoid useless copy of cpufreq policy)
>>> Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
>>> Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
>>
>> My bad, I checked kobject_put but didn't check that kobj is first in
>> struct cpufreq_policy.
>>
>> I think we should do this in cpufreq_cpu_put or, even better, move the
>> kobject struct first in struct cpufreq_policy.  Rafael, Viresh, any
>> objection?
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>>>  		policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>>> -		if (policy && policy->cpuinfo.max_freq)
>>> -			max_tsc_khz = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
>>> +		if (policy) {
>>> +			if (policy->cpuinfo.max_freq)
>>> +				max_tsc_khz = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
>>> +			cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>>> +		}
> 
> I think this change makes sense and I am not sure why should we even
> try to support cpufreq_cpu_put(NULL).

For the same reason why we support kfree(NULL) and kobject_put(NULL)?

Paolo