linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 021/593] usb: gadget: eem: fix echo command packet response 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210713204906.GB21897@amd>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 22:49:06 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Linyu Yuan <linyyuan@...eaurora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 021/593] usb: gadget: eem: fix echo command packet
 response issue

Hi!

> fix it by allocating a usb request from IN endpoint of eem interface,
> and transmit the usb request to same IN endpoint of eem interface.

>  drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_eem.c |   43
> @@ -439,11 +449,36 @@ static int eem_unwrap(struct gether *por
>  				skb_trim(skb2, len);
>  				put_unaligned_le16(BIT(15) | BIT(11) | len,
>  							skb_push(skb2, 2));
> +
> +				ep = port->in_ep;
> +				req = usb_ep_alloc_request(ep, GFP_ATOMIC);
> +				if (!req) {
> +					dev_kfree_skb_any(skb2);
> +					goto next;
> +				}
> +
> +				req->buf = kmalloc(skb2->len, GFP_KERNEL);
> +				if (!req->buf) {
> +					usb_ep_free_request(ep, req);
> +					dev_kfree_skb_any(skb2);
> +					goto next;
> +				}

This does not make sense; either both allocations can be GFP_KERNEL or
both must be GFP_ATOMIC, no?

Best regards,
								Pavel

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)