linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15] usb: dwc3: dwc3-qcom: Add missing platform_device_put() in dwc3_qcom_acpi_register

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2023 15:24:07 +0800
From:   Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@...wei.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     <stable@...r.kernel.org>, <agross@...nel.org>,
        <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, <balbi@...nel.org>,
        <lee.jones@...aro.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15] usb: dwc3: dwc3-qcom: Add missing
 platform_device_put() in dwc3_qcom_acpi_register_core

On 2023/3/6 13:49, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:26:31AM +0800, Zheng Yejian wrote:
>> On 2023/3/3 23:49, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 10:34:39AM +0800, Zheng Yejian wrote:
>>>> From: Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com>
>>>>
>>>> commit fa0ef93868a6062babe1144df2807a8b1d4924d2 upstream.
>>>>
>>>> Add the missing platform_device_put() before return from
>>>> dwc3_qcom_acpi_register_core in the error handling case.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com>
>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211231113641.31474-1-linmq006@gmail.com
>>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>>>> CVE: CVE-2023-22995
>>>
>>> That is a bogus CVE, please go revoke it.
>>
>> Agree. I see this CVE and its fixes information from NVD,
>> so try to backport this patch to fix it:
>> Link: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22995
> 
> Again, this is not a valid bug, the "problem" described can not ever be
> hit in a real system from what I can tell.

Agreed!

> 
>> Then should I just remove the "CVE: " field and send a v2 patch?
>> Or you mean "revoke" the CVE from NVD? I actually don't know how
>> to do that :(
> 
> If you care about CVEs being "real", yes, please get it revoked from the
> NVD.  There is no need to backport it either from what I can determine.
> 

Thanks for you pationce :)

--
Zheng Yejian

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h