[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <365f9a90.55b0.18df5394935.Coremail.duoming@zju.edu.cn>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 22:16:28 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: duoming@....edu.cn
To: "Michal Simek" <michal.simek@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, mturquette@...libre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: zynq: Prevent null pointer dereference caused
by kmalloc failure
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:45:54 +0100 Michal Simek wrote:
> > The kmalloc() in zynq_clk_setup() will return null if the
> > physical memory has run out. As a result, if we use snprintf
> > to write data to the null address, the null pointer dereference
> > bug will happen.
> >
> > This patch adds a stack variable to replace the kmalloc().
> >
> > Fixes: 0ee52b157b8e ("clk: zynq: Add clock controller driver")
> > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Use stack variable to replace kmalloc().
> >
> > drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c b/drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c
> > index 7bdeaff2bfd..e4c4c9adf79 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c
> > @@ -427,7 +427,7 @@ static void __init zynq_clk_setup(struct device_node *np)
> > SLCR_GEM1_CLK_CTRL, 0, 0, &gem1clk_lock);
> >
> > tmp = strlen("mio_clk_00x");
> > - clk_name = kmalloc(tmp, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + char clk_name[tmp];
>
> I know that Stephen asked for it but variable with variable length in the middle
> of code doesn't look good or useful.
> I would allocate rather bigger array on stack with size bigger than max length
> which will use it.
The length of "mio_clk_00x" is 11 bytes, and the kernel will alloc 16 bytes to it.
I use a local variable whose size is 16 bytes to replace it. The detail is shown
below:
diff --git a/drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c b/drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c
index 7bdeaff2bfd..81d530e3357 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static void __init zynq_clk_setup(struct device_node *np)
int i;
u32 tmp;
int ret;
- char *clk_name;
+ char clk_name[16];
unsigned int fclk_enable = 0;
const char *clk_output_name[clk_max];
const char *cpu_parents[4];
@@ -427,7 +427,6 @@ static void __init zynq_clk_setup(struct device_node *np)
SLCR_GEM1_CLK_CTRL, 0, 0, &gem1clk_lock);
tmp = strlen("mio_clk_00x");
- clk_name = kmalloc(tmp, GFP_KERNEL);
for (i = 0; i < NUM_MIO_PINS; i++) {
int idx;
@@ -439,7 +438,6 @@ static void __init zynq_clk_setup(struct device_node *np)
else
can_mio_mux_parents[i] = dummy_nm;
}
- kfree(clk_name);
clk_register_mux(NULL, "can_mux", periph_parents, 4,
CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT, SLCR_CAN_CLK_CTRL, 4, 2, 0,
&canclk_lock);
Do you think the above is better?
Best regards,
Duoming Zhou
Powered by blists - more mailing lists