linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: test-component: fix null pointer dereference.

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:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 13:15:22 +0500
From:   Ameer Hamza <amhamza.mgc@...il.com>
To:     Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
Cc:     "lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "perex@...ex.cz" <perex@...ex.cz>,
        "tiwai@...e.com" <tiwai@...e.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: test-component: fix null pointer dereference.

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:19:36PM +0000, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> 
> Hi Ameer
> 
> >> Probing this driver without adata is strange for me.
> >> How did probe this driver ??
> >
> > Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I am not aware of
> > implementation details of this component. Coverity suggested that there
> > can be a potential NULL pointer access which seems logical to me. Do you
> > agree with coverity here?
> 
> I think no potential NULL pointer access, because this driver can't
> be called without of_id->data.
> But, potential NULL pointer check itself is good idea.
> It seems your patch was already accepted :)
Yes, indeed.

> I noticed that we can replace it to use of_device_get_match_data()
> 
> -	const struct of_device_id *of_id = of_match_device(test_of_match, &pdev->dev);
> -	const struct test_adata *adata = of_id->data;
> +	const struct test_adata *adata = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
Thanks, that's a cleaner way. Can you advise how should proceed with
this since previous patch is already applied. Should I send a updated
version of patch, e.g., v2 or a new patch. 

> 
> Best regards
> ---
> Kuninori Morimoto