linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 164/190] Revert "iio: ad9523: fix a missing check of return value"

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:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:35:05 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 164/190] Revert "iio: ad9523: fix a missing check of
 return value"

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:00:39 +0200
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> This reverts commit ae0b3773721f08526c850e2d8dec85bdb870cd12.
> 
> Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad
> faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known
> malicious" changes.  The result of these submissions can be found in a
> paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
> entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
> of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> 
> Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
> the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
> they actually are a valid fix.  Until that work is complete, remove this
> change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> codebase.
> 
> Cc: Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>
> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

Checked. Original fix was correct.  As with others I don't mind how we handle
this.  Can either drop the revert, or bring it back later.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> ---
>  drivers/iio/frequency/ad9523.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/frequency/ad9523.c b/drivers/iio/frequency/ad9523.c
> index bdb0bc3b12dd..91eb47e27db0 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/frequency/ad9523.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/frequency/ad9523.c
> @@ -944,14 +944,11 @@ static int ad9523_setup(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	for_each_clear_bit(i, &active_mask, AD9523_NUM_CHAN) {
> -		ret = ad9523_write(indio_dev,
> +	for_each_clear_bit(i, &active_mask, AD9523_NUM_CHAN)
> +		ad9523_write(indio_dev,
>  			     AD9523_CHANNEL_CLOCK_DIST(i),
>  			     AD9523_CLK_DIST_DRIVER_MODE(TRISTATE) |
>  			     AD9523_CLK_DIST_PWR_DOWN_EN);
> -		if (ret < 0)
> -			return ret;
> -	}
>  
>  	ret = ad9523_write(indio_dev, AD9523_POWER_DOWN_CTRL, 0);
>  	if (ret < 0)