[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb1gn2e9=ip6ipAwW27vmf1FCs_y1Z=w-K8y8Z9MXVBMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 23:53:59 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Cc: Liu Xiang <liu.xiang@...ngsmart.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
liuxiang_1999@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: sunxi: fix use-after-free in sunxi_pmx_free()
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:40 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:29:08PM +0800, Liu Xiang wrote:
> > When CONFIG_REGULATOR is not set, sunxi_pmx_request() always return
> > success. Even a group of pins call sunxi_pmx_request(), the refcount
> > is only 1. This can cause a use-after-free warning in sunxi_pmx_free().
> > To solve this problem, go to err path if regulator_get() return NULL
> > or error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Xiang <liu.xiang@...ngsmart.com>
>
> Is there any drawback to depending on CONFIG_REGULATOR?
>
> Given that we need those regulators enabled anyway, I guess we could
> just select or depends on it
I agree.
Liu can you make a patch to Kconfig to just select REGULATOR?
Possibly even the specific regulator driver this SoC is using
if it is very specific for this purpose.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists