linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] usb: typec: Fix arg check for usb_power_delivery_unregister

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: <gkyzytmvcaefbfvu6ryss7zq5cm3t3mcjgtugsryhxl7aglpkk@gi2fgjnyidgi>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 13:03:20 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Amit Sunil Dhamne <amitsd@...gle.com>, 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 10:11:37AM GMT, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?

I think passing NULL matches the rest of the kernel, it removes
unnecessary if(!NULL) statements from the caller side.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry