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: <2024091956-premiere-given-c496@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:11:37 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Amit Sunil Dhamne <amitsd@...gle.com>
Cc: heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, badhri@...gle.com, kyletso@...gle.com,
	rdbabiera@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] usb: typec: Fix arg check for
 usb_power_delivery_unregister_capabilities

On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 12:58:12AM -0700, Amit Sunil Dhamne wrote:
> usb_power_delivery_register_capabilities() returns ERR_PTR in case of
> failure. usb_power_delivery_unregister_capabilities() we only check
> argument ("cap") for NULL. A more robust check would be checking for
> ERR_PTR as well.
> 
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: 662a60102c12 ("usb: typec: Separate USB Power Delivery from USB Type-C")
> Signed-off-by: Amit Sunil Dhamne <amitsd@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Badhri Jagan Sridharan <badhri@...gle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/typec/pd.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/typec/pd.c b/drivers/usb/typec/pd.c
> index d78c04a421bc..761fe4dddf1b 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/typec/pd.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/pd.c
> @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_power_delivery_register_capabilities);
>   */
>  void usb_power_delivery_unregister_capabilities(struct usb_power_delivery_capabilities *cap)
>  {
> -	if (!cap)
> +	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cap))

This feels like there's a wrong caller, why would this be called with an
error value in the first place?  Why not fix that?  And why would this
be called with NULL as well in the first place?

thanks,

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ