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]

Date:   Thu, 18 May 2023 18:20:37 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To:     Mirsad Goran 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 08:58:58PM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> 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:
>

Wow.  Sorry for all the delay on this.

Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>

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

Heh.

regards,
dan carpenter