[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5287fc2e-91c5-442b-b66c-6eb1fe334ce4@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 19:49:14 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@...cle.com>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
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: [v2] platform/x86: ISST: fix use-after-free in
tpmi_sst_dev_remove()
Hi Markus,
On 5/20/24 12:56 PM, 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.
>
> Would you eventually like another wording variant a bit more?
>
> Thus move a kfree() call behind a dereference of an invalid pointer.
The original wording of the commit message really is fine as is,
I see no need for Harshit to send a new version and I plan to
merge this as is.
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists