linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] intel_th: core: fix null pointer dereference in intel_th

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: <e314be75-c171-40dd-8298-dce40f65d93b@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 07:32:06 -0500
From: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] intel_th: core: fix null pointer dereference in
 intel_th_irq

Hi,

On 11/19/25 7:55 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> In certain cases intel_th_irq can reference a null entry in
>> the th->thdev array.  This results in the splat shown below.
>> The problem is that intel_th_output_enable() can modify the
>> thdev[] array at the same time intel_th_irq is referencing
>> the same array.  This can be fixed by disabling interrupts
>> during the call to intel_th_output_enable().
> 
> 1. Would another imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
>     https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.18-rc6#n94

I feel like the description explains the problem well. However, do you 
have alternate wording you would like to suggest?

> 
> 2. You may occasionally put more than 60 characters into text lines
>     of such a change description.
I can redo the body of the commit and submit a v3 if the maintainer is 
interested in applying a patch of this nature.

> 
> 3. Would a summary phrase like “Prevent null pointer dereference
>     in intel_th_output_enable()” be more appropriate?
The null pointer deference occurs in intel_th_irq. So I could change it 
to "Prevent null pointer dererference in intel_th_irq".

Before I do anything else with this patch I'd like to hear back from 
Alexander. There's no reason to refactor a patch that won't be committed.

Thanks,
-DA

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
>