linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: alienware-wmi-wmax: Fix uninitialized variable due to bad error handling

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: <D9973T381GI3.KMDIB14GR4LO@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 17:27:41 -0300
From: "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com>, "Armin Wolf" <W_Armin@....de>,
 "Mario Limonciello" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
 <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, <Dell.Client.Kernel@...l.com>,
 "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Dan Carpenter"
 <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: alienware-wmi-wmax: Fix uninitialized
 variable due to bad error handling

On Thu Apr 17, 2025 at 7:57 AM -03, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, Kurt Borja wrote:
>
>> wmax_thermal_information() may also return -ENOMSG, which would leave
>> `id` uninitialized in thermal_profile_probe.
>> 
>> Reorder and modify logic to catch all errors.
>> 
>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Z_-KVqNbD9ygvE2X@stanley.mountain
>> Fixes: 27e9e6339896 ("platform/x86: alienware-wmi: Refactor thermal control methods")
>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>
>> ---
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> @Ilpo: This will definitely conflict with the for-next branch when
>> merging.
>
> Okay, thanks for the heads up (I'll eventually merge fixes into for-next
> once I merge this fix).
>
>> Also, the fixes tag references a commit from before the split (same
>> series though), but ofc this fix is meant to be applied on top of it
>> (fixes branch). Is this ok or would it be better to change the fixes
>> tag to the "split" commit?
>
> Pointing to the correct commit is preferred.
>
> It doesn't look very likely that the series would be "split" such that 
> only a part of it appears in a specific stable kernel so the difference 
> shouldn't matter anyway.

Yeah, this is what I thought too.

>
> In general, stable people would just send you a notification if something 
> cannot be backported to some stable version due to a conflict, and they'd 
> depend on you to submit the amended backport anyway so it's not much extra 
> "work" for them if something ends up conflicting. (And I don't think your 
> inbox would be exactly filling from stable notifications unlike mine --- 
> one of those joys of being a subsystem maintainer).

Guess I'm still lucky :)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to stop worrying so much about
stable haha

-- 
 ~ Kurt