linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: ISST: fix use-after-free in tpmi_sst_dev

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: Mon, 20 May 2024 12:38:55 +0300 (EEST)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>, 
    platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, 
    Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, 
    Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, 
    Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, 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()

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Markus Elfring wrote:

> …
> > 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.

No, the suggested wording would make it less precise ("post the 
dereference" -> "behind an assignment") and also tries to tell pointless 
things about the location in the codei that is visible in the patch itself.

-- 
 i.

> > 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
>