[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d5203ff5-8ed4-48ea-8e58-a2e6680b0542@web.de>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 19:30:52 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: ISST: fix use-after-free in
tpmi_sst_dev_remove()
…
> Fix this by reordering the kfree() post the dereference.
Would a wording approach (like the following) be a bit nicer?
Move a kfree() call behind an assignment statement in the affected if branch.
…
> ---
> v1->v2: Add R.B from Hans and fix commit message wrapping to 75 chars.
> This is found by smatch and only compile tested.
* Can it occasionally be nicer to use an enumeration also for
version descriptions?
* Is it helpful to separate additional comments by blank lines?
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel/speed_select_if/isst_tpmi_core.c | 2 +-
How do you think about to omit a repeated marker line here?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists