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: <f9212fd0-0a52-4076-a97a-c5af8de194cf@kili.mountain>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 16:09:33 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To:     Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>
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 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