linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFT net-next PATCH RESEND 0/2] ethernet: intel: fix freeing uninitialized pointers with _

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: <eaf30e67-ce1a-47ce-8207-b973ea260bf5@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 10:17:08 -0800
From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
To: ally heev <allyheev@...il.com>, Przemek Kitszel
	<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jakub
 Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Alexander
 Lobakin" <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, "Dan
 Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFT net-next PATCH RESEND 0/2] ethernet:
 intel: fix freeing uninitialized pointers with __free



On 12/2/2025 11:47 AM, ally heev wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 13:40 -0800, Tony Nguyen wrote:
>>
>> On 11/23/2025 11:40 PM, Ally Heev wrote:
>>> Uninitialized pointers with `__free` attribute can cause undefined
>>> behavior as the memory assigned randomly to the pointer is freed
>>> automatically when the pointer goes out of scope.
>>>
>>> We could just fix it by initializing the pointer to NULL, but, as usage of
>>> cleanup attributes is discouraged in net [1], trying to achieve cleanup
>>> using goto
>>
>> These two drivers already have multiple other usages of this. All the
>> other instances initialize to NULL; I'd prefer to see this do the same
>> over changing this single instance.
>>
> 
> Other usages are slightly complicated to be refactored and might need
> good testing. Do you want me to do it in a different series?

Hi Ally,

Sorry, I think I was unclear. I'd prefer these two initialized to NULL, 
to match the other usages, over removing the __free() from them.

Thanks,
Tony

> Regards,
> Ally