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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y1+UHKsFbg46UEvM@unreal> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 11:23:40 +0200 From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> Cc: bongsu.jeon@...sung.com, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller@...glegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfc: Allow to create multiple virtual nci devices On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 03:29:19PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > The current virtual nci driver is great for testing and fuzzing. > But it allows to create at most one "global" device which does not allow > to run parallel tests and harms fuzzing isolation and reproducibility. > Restructure the driver to allow creation of multiple independent devices. > This should be backwards compatible for existing tests. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> > Cc: Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon@...sung.com> > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org > --- > drivers/nfc/virtual_ncidev.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-) <...> > static int virtual_nci_send(struct nci_dev *ndev, struct sk_buff *skb) > { > - mutex_lock(&nci_mutex); > - if (state != virtual_ncidev_enabled) { > - mutex_unlock(&nci_mutex); > - kfree_skb(skb); > - return 0; > - } > + struct virtual_nci_dev *vdev = nci_get_drvdata(ndev); > > - if (send_buff) { > - mutex_unlock(&nci_mutex); > + mutex_lock(&vdev->mtx); > + if (vdev->send_buff) { > + mutex_unlock(&vdev->mtx); > kfree_skb(skb); You probably need to set vdev->send_buff to NULL here. > return -1; > } > - send_buff = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL); > - mutex_unlock(&nci_mutex); > - wake_up_interruptible(&wq); > + vdev->send_buff = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL); You don't check return value of skb_copy(), it can fail, but this function will return 0 (success). Do you do it deliberately? If yes, please add a comment to the code, as it is not clear. Thanks > + mutex_unlock(&vdev->mtx); > + wake_up_interruptible(&vdev->wq); > consume_skb(skb); > > return 0;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists