linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] scsi: ufs: Fix a possible NULL pointer issue

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:42:35 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
Cc:     asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
        hongwus@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] scsi: ufs: Fix a possible NULL pointer issue

On 2020-12-14 22:32, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 19:41 -0800, Can Guo wrote:
>> Fixes: 88a92d6ae4fe ("scsi: ufs: Serialize eh_work with system PM
>> events and async scan")
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 9 +++++----
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> index c1c401b..ef155a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>> @@ -8883,8 +8883,11 @@ int ufshcd_system_suspend(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>>         int ret = 0;
>>         ktime_t start = ktime_get();
>> 
>> +       if (!hba)
>> +               return 0;
>> +
>>         down(&hba->eh_sem);
>> -       if (!hba || !hba->is_powered)
>> +       if (!hba->is_powered)
>>                 return 0;
> 
> 
> Can,
> 
> why not moving down(&hba->eh_sem) after "return 0;"?

In your way, if hba is not powered, ufshcd_system_suspend() returns
0, which is a successful suspend. When ufshcd_system_resume() is called,
if hba is not powered, it goes to out and does up(&hba->eh_sem), which
shall cause unbalance to eh_sem.

Thanks,

Can Guo.