linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtla: fix double free

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:   Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:34:56 +0200
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
To:     Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtla: fix double free

Hi Andreas

On 7/25/22 15:10, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Don't call trace_instance_destroy in trace_instance_init when it fails,
> this is done by the caller.

Regarding the Subject, are you seeing a double-free error, or it is just an
optimization?

AFAICS, trace_instance_destroy() checks the pointers before calling free().

Why am I asking? because if it is a double-free bug, we need to add the "Fixes:"
tag, otherwise, we can think about a Subject that better describes the patch,  like:

"rtla: Do not call trace_instance_destroy() twice on error"

Also, after the "subsystem:," i.e., "rlta:" we need to use capital: e.g.,

"rtla: Fix double free"

Anyways, I see that the code makes sense. I am just trying to improve the
description.

Thanks!
-- Daniel