linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] platform/x86: wmi: Check if event data is not NULL

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]

Message-ID: <1dbec6ed-8af0-4433-8b6c-98759a21a287@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 04:21:25 +0100
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: corentin.chary@...il.com, luke@...nes.dev,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] platform/x86: wmi: Check if event data is not NULL

Am 20.02.24 um 10:19 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen:

> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Armin Wolf wrote:
>
>> Am 19.02.24 um 12:59 schrieb Armin Wolf:
>>
>>> WMI event drivers which do not have no_notify_data set expect
>>> that each WMI event contains valid data. Evaluating _WED however
>>> might return no data, which can cause issues with such drivers.
>>>
>>> Fix this by validating that evaluating _WED did return data.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>>    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c
>>> index 8fb90b726f50..d0fe8153f803 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c
>>> @@ -1210,6 +1210,7 @@ static void wmi_notify_driver(struct wmi_block
>>> *wblock)
>>>    {
>>>    	struct wmi_driver *driver = drv_to_wdrv(wblock->dev.dev.driver);
>>>    	struct acpi_buffer data = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
>>> +	union acpi_object *obj = NULL;
>>>    	acpi_status status;
>>>
>>>    	if (!driver->no_notify_data) {
>>> @@ -1218,12 +1219,18 @@ static void wmi_notify_driver(struct wmi_block
>>> *wblock)
>>>    			dev_warn(&wblock->dev.dev, "Failed to get event
>>> data\n");
>>>    			return;
>>>    		}
>>> +
>>> +		obj = data.pointer;
>>> +		if (!obj) {
>>> +			dev_warn(&wblock->dev.dev, "Event contains not event
>>> data\n");
>> I just noticed that this should have been "Event contains no event data\n".
>> Should i send
>> another patch?
> Hi Armin,
>
> As I was doing some history manipulation anyway as is, I tweaked it
> directly in the history. While doing the conflict resolution because of
> that small change I realized the wording got corrected in the latter patch
> anyway so it was quite harmless but it's now correct in both commits in
> review-ilpo branch.
>
Thank you!