linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: audio: Add missing unlock in gbaudio_dapm_free

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:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 17:19:25 +0800
From:   "wanghai (M)" <wanghai38@...wei.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Vaibhav Agarwal <vaibhav.sr@...il.com>
CC:     <elder@...nel.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, <aibhav.sr@...il.com>,
        <greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: audio: Add missing unlock in
 gbaudio_dapm_free_controls()


在 2020/12/4 16:40, Johan Hovold 写道:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:13:50AM +0800, Wang Hai wrote:
>> Add the missing unlock before return from function
>> gbaudio_dapm_free_controls() in the error handling case.
>>
>> Fixes: 510e340efe0c ("staging: greybus: audio: Add helper APIs for dynamic audio module")
>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c
>> index 237531ba60f3..293675dbea10 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_helper.c
>> @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ int gbaudio_dapm_free_controls(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
>>   		if (!w) {
>>   			dev_err(dapm->dev, "%s: widget not found\n",
>>   				widget->name);
>> +			mutex_unlock(&dapm->card->dapm_mutex);
>>   			return -EINVAL;
>>   		}
>>   		widget++;
> This superficially looks correct, but there seems to be another bug in
> this function. It can be used free an array of widgets, but if one of
> them isn't found we just leak the rest. Perhaps that return should
> rather be "widget++; continue;".
>
I think this is a good idea, should I send a v2 patch?
>