linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] ACPI: video: Fix refcounting in apple_gmux_backlight

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

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0g_WmbCwcqvy_VwZZNDbX48c84vmkqUdGvjX3-w24GCwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:24:27 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        acpica-devel@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] ACPI: video: Fix refcounting in apple_gmux_backlight_present()

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 7:18 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 06:46:44PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > On 1/23/23 18:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev() gets ACPI device with the bumped
> > > refcount. The caller must drop it when it's done.
> > >
> > > Fix ACPI device refcounting in apple_gmux_backlight_present().
>
> ...
>
> > Thank you for your work on this, much appreciated and I like
> > the new acpi_get_first_match_physical_node().
> >
> > But I don't think this patch is a good idea. There is a
> > regression related to apple_gmux_backlight_present()
> > with a patch-set fixing it pending.
> >
> > And that patch-set actually removes this function. Adding
> > a fix for this real, but not really important leak now,
> > will just make backporting the actual fix harder.
> >
> > So I would prefer for this patch to not go in and to
> > go for (a to be submitted v2) of the patch-set fixing
> > the regression right away instead.
>
> Maybe I missed something, but I noticed that you actually moved (not killed)
> the code which is currently in this function. If it's the case, I prefer my
> fix to be imported first.

Well, what about making the new code not leak?

That way the separate fix won't be necessary any more, will it?