linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] scsi: qla2xxx: Fix double free of fcport in qla24xx_els_dcmd

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: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:55:31 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Yongzhi Liu <hyperlyzcs@...il.com>,
 GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...vell.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
 "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
 Nilesh Javali <njavali@...vell.com>, Saurav Kashyap <skashyap@...vell.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...cle.com>, huntazhang@...cent.com,
 jitxie@...cent.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] scsi: qla2xxx: Fix double free of fcport in
 qla24xx_els_dcmd_iocb

* I would usually expect a corresponding cover letter for patch series.

* Would you like to add parentheses to the function name in the summary phrase?

> When dma_alloc_coherent() or qla2x00_start_sp() return an error,

                                                  call returned?

> the callback function qla2x00_els_dcmd_sp_free in qla2x00_sp_release
> will call qla2x00_free_fcport() to kfree fcport. We shouldn't call

                                     free “fcport”?

> qla2x00_free_fcport() again in the error handling path.

                                                    paths?

> Fix this by cleaning the duplicate qla2x00_free_fcport() calls up.

Would the wording “Thus delete duplicate qla2x00_free_fcport() calls.” be a bit nicer?

…
> ---
> V2 -> V3: Improve patch summary and provide a patch serises with two separate update steps
…

* How do you think about to avoid the repetition of version identifiers
  (according to the selected enumeration style)?

* You would probably like to avoid another typo here.

Regards,
Markus