linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next v2 1/3] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Fix double free in tpmi_create

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: <795de1449650c1c2293f4b52edcfd0cc2d12ca69.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2023 03:23:02 -0700
From:   srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>
Cc:     platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v2 1/3] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Fix double
 free in tpmi_create_device()

Hi,

...
...

> > 

> > Hi Srinivas and Hans,
> > 
> > How about folding these three patches into one patch and resend a
> > v3 patch?
> > 
> > This will get all people together and avoid the previous
> > embarrassing sitation.
> 
> If I understand things correctly then patch 1/3 needs 3/3 to function
> correctly, right ?
> 
> I would not fold them together, smaller patches are easier to review
> / understand, but maybe change the order and put patch 3/3 first? (so
> make it 1/3) ?

That should be correct order. The patch 3/3 should be the first.

> 
> I can even do that when applying if you agree that is the better
> order.
Agree.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
> 
> 
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c | 17 ++++-------------
> > > > >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c
> > > > > b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c
> > > > > index c999732b0f1e..882fe5e4763f 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/tpmi.c
> > > > > @@ -215,8 +215,8 @@ static int tpmi_create_device(struct
> > > > > intel_tpmi_info *tpmi_info,
> > > > >            feature_vsec_dev =
> > > > > kzalloc(sizeof(*feature_vsec_dev),
> > > > > GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > >          if (!feature_vsec_dev) {
> > > > > -               ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > > -               goto free_res;
> > > > > +               kfree(res);
> > > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >          }
> > > > >            snprintf(feature_id_name, sizeof(feature_id_name),
> > > > > "tpmi-
> > > > > %s", name);
> > > > > @@ -242,17 +242,8 @@ static int tpmi_create_device(struct
> > > > > intel_tpmi_info *tpmi_info,
> > > > >           * feature_vsec_dev memory is also freed as part of
> > > > > device
> > > > >           * delete.
> > > > >           */
> > > > > -       ret = intel_vsec_add_aux(vsec_dev->pcidev, &vsec_dev-
> > > > > > auxdev.dev,
> > > > > -                                feature_vsec_dev,
> > > > > feature_id_name);
> > > > > -       if (ret)
> > > > > -               goto free_res;
> > > > > -
> > > > > -       return 0;
> > > > > -
> > > > > -free_res:
> > > > > -       kfree(res);
> > > > > -
> > > > > -       return ret;
> > > > > +       return intel_vsec_add_aux(vsec_dev->pcidev,
> > > > > &vsec_dev-
> > > > > > auxdev.dev,
> > > > > +                                 feature_vsec_dev,
> > > > > feature_id_name);
> > > > >   }
> > > > >     static int tpmi_create_devices(struct intel_tpmi_info
> > > > > *tpmi_info)
>