[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d1bf351-77cc-7fe9-2d62-8bd99789e4f1@linux.intel.com>
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
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists