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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:27:06 +0800 From: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <siglesias@...lia.com>, Jens Taprogge <jens.taprogge@...rogge.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@...il.com>, Lv Yunlong <lyl2019@...l.ustc.edu.cn>, industrypack-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ipack: tpci200: fix many double free issues in tpci200_pci_probe On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 2:12 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 07:41:55AM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 7:08 AM Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:32 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 10:30:26PM +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 ("ipack/carriers/tpci200: > > > > > Fix a double free in tpci200_pci_probe"). > > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > --- > > > > > v1->v2: revise PATCH 2/3, 3/3, not depending on PATCH 1/3; move the > > > > > location change of tpci_unregister into one separate patch; > > > > > > > > Also needs to go to the stable trees, right? > > > > > > Yes, this needs to go to the stable trees. > > > > Hi gregkh, > > > > Let me clarify more. In my series, PATCH 3/4 4/4 depends on PATCH 1/4 > > and PATCH 2/4. And also PATCH 2/4 depends on PATCH 1/4 as they are > > closely related. > > > > But from your reply, the last 2 patches should not depend on the first > > 2 patches. I don't quite understand as I don't send some patch series > > before. For a patch series, the latter ones should depend on the > > former ones, right? If I have any misunderstanding, please let me > > know. > > Yes, they can depend on previous patches, but if some patches are to be > merged today for 5.14-final, and others later for 5.15-rc1, then ideally > they will be separate series of changes as those go to two different > branches in my tree at the moment. > > > BTW, PATCH 3/4 has some compilation issues. I will fix it in the next version. > > As you haven't even tested these, I'm really hesitant to take them at > all. > > Please just send the first two patches, fixed up, as a series after you > have tested them, and then after they are merged into Linus's tree, you > can send the cleanup patches, as they are just "nice" to have. > That's good. I will send the first two patches. After they are merged, then I will send the rest patches. > thanks, > > greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists