linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/18] software_node: Enforce parent before child ordering of nodes array for software_node_register

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:35:30 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        lenb@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        bgolaszewski@...libre.com, wsa@...nel.org, yong.zhi@...el.com,
        sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com, bingbu.cao@...el.com,
        tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, mchehab@...nel.org, robert.moore@...el.com,
        erik.kaneda@...el.com, pmladek@...e.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
        jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com, kitakar@...il.com,
        heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/18] software_node: Enforce parent before child
 ordering of nodes array for software_node_register_nodes()

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:15PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:
> Registering software_nodes with the .parent member set to point to a
> currently unregistered software_node has the potential for problems,
> so enforce parent -> child ordering in arrays passed to this function.

I agree with Laurent.

...

>  	for (i = 0; nodes[i].name; i++) {
> +		if (nodes[i].parent)
> +			if (!software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) {
> +				ret = -EINVAL;
> +				goto err_unregister_nodes;
> +			}
> +

Besides that can we pack these conditionals together?

		if (nodes[i].parent && !software_node_to_swnode(nodes[i].parent)) {


Do we have sane ordering in software_node_unregister_nodes()?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko