linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] drm/nouveau: fix null pointer dereference in nouveau_connector_get

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]

Message-ID: <790dbe8aee621b58ec0ef8d029106cb1c1830a31.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:49:10 -0400
From: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>, 
	nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Ben Skeggs
	 <bskeggs@...hat.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Danilo Krummrich
	 <dakr@...hat.com>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>, Karol Herbst
	 <kherbst@...hat.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, David
 Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drm/nouveau: fix null pointer dereference in
 nouveau_connector_get_modes

Ma Ke - I assume you already know but you can just ignore this message
from Markus as it is just spam. Sorry about the trouble!

Markus, you've already been asked by Greg so I will ask a bit more
sternly in case there is actually a person on the other end: you've
already been asked to stop by Greg and are being ignored by multiple
kernel maintainers. If I keep seeing messages like this from you I will
assume you are a bot and I will block your email from both DRI related
mailing lists (nouveau and dri-devel) accordingly. You've done this 3
times now.

(...I doubt I'll get a response from Markus, but I certainly want to
make sure they are a bot and not an actual person before removing them
:)

On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 11:02 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > In nouveau_connector_get_modes(), the return value of
> > drm_mode_duplicate()
> > is assigned to mode, which will lead to a possible NULL pointer
> > dereference on failure of drm_mode_duplicate(). Add a check to
> > avoid npd.
> 
> A) Can a wording approach (like the following) be a better change
> description?
> 
>    A null pointer is stored in the local variable “mode” after a call
>    of the function “drm_mode_duplicate” failed. This pointer was
> passed to
>    a subsequent call of the function “drm_mode_probed_add” where an
> undesirable
>    dereference will be performed then.
>    Thus add a corresponding return value check.
> 
> 
> B) How do you think about to append parentheses to the function name
>    in the summary phrase?
> 
> 
> C) How do you think about to put similar results from static source
> code
>    analyses into corresponding patch series?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
> 

-- 
Cheers,
 Lyude Paul (she/her)
 Software Engineer at Red Hat