linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: buffer: Fix double-free in iio_buffers_alloc_sysfs_and

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:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 10:54:36 +0800
From:   Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@...il.com>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        "Jonathan Cameron" <jic23@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: buffer: Fix double-free in
 iio_buffers_alloc_sysfs_and_mask()

Hi,

On 2021/10/13 4:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:37 PM Alexandru Ardelean
> <ardeleanalex@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:18 PM Yang Yingliang
>> <yangyingliang@...wei.com> wrote:
>>> When __iio_buffer_alloc_sysfs_and_mask() failed, 'unwind_idx' should be
>>> set to 'i - 1' to prevent double-free when cleanup resources.
>>>
>>> BUG: KASAN: double-free or invalid-free in __iio_buffer_free_sysfs_and_mask+0x32/0xb0 [industrialio]
>>> Call Trace:
>>>   kfree+0x117/0x4c0
>>>   __iio_buffer_free_sysfs_and_mask+0x32/0xb0 [industrialio]
>>>   iio_buffers_alloc_sysfs_and_mask+0x60d/0x1570 [industrialio]
>>>   __iio_device_register+0x483/0x1a30 [industrialio]
>>>   ina2xx_probe+0x625/0x980 [ina2xx_adc]
>>>
>> Makes sense.
>> Thanks for the catch.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@...il.com>
> ...
>
>>>                  ret = __iio_buffer_alloc_sysfs_and_mask(buffer, indio_dev, i);
>>>                  if (ret) {
>>> -                       unwind_idx = i;
>>> +                       unwind_idx = i - 1;
>>>                          goto error_unwind_sysfs_and_mask;
> I prefer to see
>
> - for (; unwind_idx >= 0; unwind_idx--) {
> + while (unwind_idx--)
>
> instead.
With using while loop, 'unwind_idx = 
iio_dev_opaque->attached_buffers_cnt - 1;' need
be changed.
I think my change is clear and simple, do I need resend a new version 
with using while loop ?

Thanks,
Yang
>
>>>                  }
>>>          }