linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/3] test_firmware: fix a memory leak with reqs buffer

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: <72257758-a0e6-1118-f397-431ac9ec3059@alu.unizg.hr>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 20:58:58 +0200
From:   Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        Tianfei Zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 2/3] test_firmware: fix a memory leak with reqs
 buffer

On 12. 05. 2023. 15:09, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:34:29PM +0200, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>>> @@ -1011,6 +1016,11 @@ ssize_t trigger_batched_requests_async_store(struct device *dev,
>>>    	mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex);
>>> +	if (test_fw_config->reqs) {
>>> +		rc = -EBUSY;
>>> +		goto out_bail;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>>    	test_fw_config->reqs =
>>>    		vzalloc(array3_size(sizeof(struct test_batched_req),
>>>    				    test_fw_config->num_requests, 2));
>>
>> I was just thinking, since returning -EBUSY for the case of already allocated
>> test_fw_config->reqs was your suggestion and your idea, maybe it would be OK
>> to properly reflect that in Co-developed-by: or Signed-off-by: , but if I
>> understood well, the CoC requires that I am explicitly approved of those?
>>
> 
> If everyone else is okay, let's just apply this as-is.  You did all the
> hard bits.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter

If it is OK with you, then I hope I have your Reviewed-by:

I'm kinda still uncertain about the proper procedure.
This certainly isn't "the perfect patch" :-)

Best regards,
Mirsad