linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pmdomain: core: Fix error checking in genpd_dev_pm_attach_by

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: <CAPDyKFpiqrZwebmo+n9mO6Fce3ZYWhVLzcDu37SfphdvpQxSiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 13:34:35 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>, 
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pmdomain: core: Fix error checking in genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_id()

On Thu, 8 May 2025 at 12:34, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 12:14:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 May 2025 at 08:29, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The error checking for of_count_phandle_with_args() does not handle
> > > negative error codes correctly.  The problem is that "index" is a u32 so
> > > in the condition "if (index >= num_domains)" negative error codes stored
> > > in "num_domains" are type promoted to very high positive values and
> > > "index" is always going to be valid.
> > >
> > > Test for negative error codes first and then test if "index" is valid.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 3ccf3f0cd197 ("PM / Domains: Enable genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_id|name() for single PM domain")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> >
> > Thanks for the fix! It looks correct to me!
> >
> > What puzzles me though, if this is a real problem I am sure we would
> > have been receiving bug reports, don't you think?
> >
>
> I think it would only cause an issue for invalid devicetrees?  So it's
> probably not an issue people often see in real life.

Yes, you are probably right.

Anyway, I have applied this for fixes and added a stable tag.

Thanks!
Uffe