linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] leds: lp50xx: Fix an error handling path in 'lp50xx_probe

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: <20201125121657.GH1008337@kuha.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:16:57 +0200
From:   Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        dmurphy@...com, jacek.anaszewski@...il.com,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: lp50xx: Fix an error handling path in
 'lp50xx_probe_dt()'

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:46:29AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > > I have been trying to teach Smatch to understand reference counting so
> > > > > it can discover these kinds of bugs automatically.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know how software_node_get_next_child() can work when it doesn't
> > > > > call kobject_get().  This sort of bug would have been caught in testing
> > > > > because it affects the success path so I must be reading the code wrong.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I had the same reading of the code and thought that I was missing something
> > > > somewhere.
> > > > 
> > > > There is the same question about 'acpi_get_next_subnode' which is also a
> > > > '.get_next_child_node' function, without any ref counting, if I'm correct.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yeah, but there aren't any ->get/put() ops for the acpi_get_next_subnode()
> > > stuff so it's not a problem.  (Presumably there is some other sort of
> > > refcounting policy there).
> > 
> > OK, so I guess we need to make software_node_get_next_child()
> > mimic the behaviour of of_get_next_available_child(), and not
> > acpi_get_next_subnode(). Does the attached patch work?
> 
> Does not sound unreasonable. Did it get solved, somehow?

Has anybody tested my patch?

thanks,

-- 
heikki