linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Remove module from list before freeing in gb_audio_module

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: <2024122358-vexingly-broadly-7df7@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 19:05:35 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Atharva Tiwari <evepolonium@...il.com>
Cc: Vaibhav Agarwal <vaibhav.sr@...il.com>,
	Mark Greer <mgreer@...malcreek.com>,
	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
	greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: Remove module from list before freeing
 in gb_audio_module_release

On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 08:41:12PM +0530, Atharva Tiwari wrote:
> Previously,the module was freed without detaching it from the list which could lead to memory leak
> this patch uses list_del to safely remove the module from the list
> 
> Signed-off-by: Atharva Tiwari <evepolonium@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/greybus/audio_manager_module.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_manager_module.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_manager_module.c
> index 4a4dfb42f50f..7e52c3f95692 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_manager_module.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/audio_manager_module.c
> @@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ static void gb_audio_module_release(struct kobject *kobj)
>  	struct gb_audio_manager_module *module = to_gb_audio_module(kobj);
>  
>  	pr_info("Destroying audio module #%d\n", module->id);
> -	/* TODO -> delete from list */
> +	if (module->list.prev && module->list.next)

For lists, you really shouldn't poke around in the prev and next
pointers, right?

Have you tested this?  This feels like an odd change, is it a real
system that is using this code anymore?

thanks,

greg k-h