linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] serial: pch_uart: potential dereference of null pointer

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 14:15:14 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
Cc:     jirislaby@...nel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] serial: pch_uart: potential dereference of null
 pointer

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:51:21PM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang wrote:
> The return value of dma_alloc_coherent() needs to be checked.
> To avoid dereference of null pointer in case of the failure of alloc.
> 
> Fixes: ab4382d27412 ("tty: move drivers/serial/ to drivers/tty/serial/")

That is not the commit that caused the problem :(

> Signed-off-by: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
> ---
> Changelog:
> 
> v1 -> v2
> 
> *Change 1. Add the dev_err when dma_alloc_coherent failed.
> ---
>  drivers/tty/serial/pch_uart.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/pch_uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/pch_uart.c
> index f0351e6f0ef6..d19ed7da24fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/pch_uart.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/pch_uart.c
> @@ -745,6 +745,14 @@ static void pch_request_dma(struct uart_port *port)
>  	/* Get Consistent memory for DMA */
>  	priv->rx_buf_virt = dma_alloc_coherent(port->dev, port->fifosize,
>  				    &priv->rx_buf_dma, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!priv->rx_buf_virt) {
> +		dev_err(priv->port.dev, "%s:dma_alloc_coherent FAILS(Rx)\n",
> +			__func__);
> +		dma_release_channel(priv->chan_tx);
> +		priv->chan_tx = NULL;
> +		return;

You seemed to have ignored my previous review comments on this change
for some reason :(

This is not correct.

greg k-h