linux-kernel - Re: clkdev: report over-sized strings when creating clkdev entries

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, 07 May 2024 14:55:58 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>, linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: clkdev: report over-sized strings when creating clkdev entries

Quoting Arnd Bergmann (2024-05-07 13:52:59)
> On Tue, May 7, 2024, at 22:26, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Arnd Bergmann (2024-05-07 00:44:15)
> >> On Tue, May 7, 2024, at 09:20, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >> > The WinLink E850-96 board boot failed with Linux next-20240506 but there
> >> > is no kernel crash log on the serial [1].
> >> >
> >> > Anders bisection results pointing to this commit,
> >> > # first bad commit:
> >> >   [4d11c62ca8d77cb1f79054844b598e0f4e92dabe]
> >> >   clkdev: report over-sized strings when creating clkdev entrie
> >> >
> >> > After reverting the above patch the boot test passed [2].
> >> >
> >> > Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
> >> >
> >
> > There are two fixes on the list: [1] and [2]. Perhaps one of those
> > resolves this?
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240507065317.3214186-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240507064434.3213933-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com
> 
> My guess is that either one avoids the crash, but we actually
> want both of them since the problem is a combination of the two
> issues.
> 
> I think we also need this one on top, to have a va_end() for
> each return() statement:

Makes sense. Hopefully Russell can fold that fix in as well, or you can
send it to the patch tracker.