linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] efi: Fix memory leak in efivar_ssdt

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZzeUnn99B47FAA6R@grain>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:36:14 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] efi: Fix memory leak in efivar_ssdt_load

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 06:02:07PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > It is still unclear for me why we don't exit with error if acpi_load_table
> > failed but continue to iterate keys and don't report a caller with error
> > instead. I didn't change this logic for backward compatibility sake but
> > still looks suspicious.
> >
> 
> I've queued this up now.
> 
> I think there may be cases where it might make sense, or at least,
> where currently, we might rely on the behavior where acpi_load_table()
> failures are ignored. If a table references an object that does not
> exist in the namespace (e.g., because some I2C controller is
> disabled), it might still make sense to load remaining SSDTs if they
> describe things that are unrelated.

Yeah, sound reasonable. Thanks, Ard!