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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 11:05:14 +0800 (+08) From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4a 00/38] timers: Use timer_shutdown*() before freeing timers On Sat, 5 Nov 2022, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 07:08:48 +0800 (+08) > Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> wrote: > > > Various suggestions: > > > > 1. On your ... put when strict and then on a separate line put when != > > ptr. The when strict will get rid of the goto problem (usually a > > desirable feature, but not here) and the when != ptr will be sure that ptr > > is not used before the free. > > You mean ptr->timer.function? because it's allowed to be touched. Only > this case is weird (and I believe I covered it). > > Not sure what you mean by "put when strict" I added: > > ... when strict > > Thinking that's what you meant (examples would be easier to understand, > than descriptions). And it didn't cover the return case. Does it only > cover gotos? > > See drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/sta.c for the false positive case: > > del_timer_sync(&baid_data->session_timer); > [..] But there is a kfree_rcu(baid_data, rcu_head); right below. So it looks fine? julia > return 0; > > out_free: > kfree(baid_data); > return ret; > } > > That "return 0" should make the match fail. > > > > > 2. If you want to handle the initialization of the function field, then > > you can duplicate the rule and add the removal of that assignment in the > > first one. This only seems worth it if it is a very common case. > > Otherwise, I would agree with Linus and just take care of it by hand > > later. > > No, Linus wants the script to not touch the initialization case. That > is, currently, the script does the conversion (which also initializes > it), and the timer.function = NULL is just redundant. > > What Linus wanted, was my script to do nothing in this case. But I > figured this part out. > > > > > 3. Running the rule three times seems to me like a reasonable choice. Or > > you could duplicate the rule three times. But that would be more script > > to read through. If this is not a common case, though, you could probably > > also fix the one up later by hand. > > Yeah, that's fine. > > I'm just looking for how to avoid the goto / return case. > > -- Steve >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists