linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nfc: change order inside nfc_se

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]

Message-ID: <20230306204150.vjpgqbau3kogg4n3@fpc>
Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2023 23:41:50 +0300
From:   Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
        lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfc: change order inside nfc_se_io error path

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 11:35:09PM +0300, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 04:28:12PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 04/03/2023 17:48, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> > > cb_context should be freed on error paths in nfc_se_io as stated by commit
> > > 25ff6f8a5a3b ("nfc: fix memory leak of se_io context in nfc_genl_se_io").
> > > 
> > > Make the error path in nfc_se_io unwind everything in reverse order, i.e.
> > > free the cb_context after unlocking the device.
> > > 
> > > No functional changes intended - only adjusting to good coding practice.
> > 
> > I would argue that it is functional. Running code in or outside of
> > critical section/locks is quite functional change.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, actually, yes. I'll resend v2 with changed commit info as 'no
> functional changes' statement can probably be misunderstood later.
> 
> Should this patch be backported by the way? It doesn't seem to fix any
> real issue but, as you mentioned, it contains some functional changes
> which may be of some importance in future.

Sorry for the noise. Didn't see the patch was already applied. So it's
okay as it is.