[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YRDrHPcC8Nb3g0sg@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 10:45:16 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
Cc: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <siglesias@...lia.com>,
Jens Taprogge <jens.taprogge@...rogge.org>,
Lv Yunlong <lyl2019@...l.ustc.edu.cn>,
Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@...il.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
industrypack-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ipack: tpci200: fix many double free issues in
tpci200_pci_probe
On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 11:40:13AM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 8:20 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 07:11:31PM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> > > The function tpci200_register called by tpci200_install and
> > > tpci200_unregister called by tpci200_uninstall are in pair. However,
> > > tpci200_unregister has some cleanup operations not in the
> > > tpci200_register. So the error handling code of tpci200_pci_probe has
> > > many different double free issues.
> > >
> > > Fix this problem by moving those cleanup operations out of
> > > tpci200_unregister, into tpci200_pci_remove and reverting
> > > the previous commit 9272e5d0028d
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
> > > Fixes: 9272e5d0028d ("ipack/carriers/tpci200: Fix a double free in tpci200_pci_probe")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/ipack/carriers/tpci200.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > This needs to be applied to the tree now, and should not depend on your
> > patch 1/3 here as it is a bugfix. Please redo this series and send 2,
> > one to be merged for 5.14-final and to go to the stable kernels, and a
> > separate "clean up things" series that can wait until 5.15-rc1.
>
> No problem. I will send a separate fix.
>
> BTW, how about the PATCH 3/3 in this series [1]? It does not depend on
> PATCH 1/3, however, it does not include the fix to memleak, but also
> moves the unregister function. Shall I send it separately?
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/7/21/370
Please resend everything, as none of these were applied and are all gone
from my queue.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists