linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] misc: fastrpc: check qcom_scm_assign_mem() return in rpmsg

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: <CAK+ZN9pBSY1bCbMQMoOj0qNQKvEwO_j=zxLnDcA_4O9AyL+uHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 10:29:31 +0800
From: Xingjing Deng <micro6947@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, srini@...nel.org, amahesh@....qualcomm.com, 
	arnd@...db.de, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xingjing Deng <xjdeng@...a.edu.cn>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] misc: fastrpc: check qcom_scm_assign_mem() return in rpmsg_probe

I understand the current situation. I need to record which static
analysis tool I used to identify this issue and clarify that no actual
testing was performed. However, I have a question: my static analysis
tool is not open-source, so how should I document this?

Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> 于2026年1月27日周二 15:10写道：
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 10:18:38AM +0800, Xingjing Deng wrote:
> > I identified this issue through static program analysis. All other
> > callers of this function validate its return value, so I believe a
> > validation check should also be added here.
>
> Please don't top-post :(
>
> Anyway, you MUST properly document the tools used to find issues like
> this in your changelog text, as our rules require.  Please do so.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h