From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Wei Jie Law" <98lawweijie@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - fix irq[] overrun with 7 interrupt sources
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 06:05:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260824060521.5B0811F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4a48122167e32a6755d9ee7033f29bf7c78be796.1787549234.git.98lawweijie@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The function devices created during probe are leaked and can trigger a Use-After-Free if `rmi_f34_create_sysfs()` fails.
- [High] Failure of `irq_create_mapping()` returns 0, which is unchecked and passed directly to IRQ manipulation functions, hijacking or corrupting system IRQ 0.
- [Medium] The IRQ domain created during probe is leaked on almost all error paths in `rmi_driver_probe()`.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/2] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - fix irq[] overrun with 7 interrupt sources ---
commit 048bbd16c16ceb54800fa66f025c5162730cc787
Author: Wei Jie Law <98lawweijie@gmail.com>
Input: synaptics-rmi4 - fix irq[] overrun with 7 interrupt sources
This commit fixes an out-of-bounds array access by expanding the irq array
size from 6 to 7 to match the maximum interrupt source count specified by the
RMI4 Page Description Table entry.
> diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.h b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.h
> index 90122df21f746..faf2ebb00d521 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.h
> +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.h
> @@ -12,10 +12,13 @@
> struct rmi_device;
>
> /*
> - * The interrupt source count in the function descriptor can represent up to
> - * 6 interrupt sources in the normal manner.
> + * The interrupt source count in the function descriptor is a three bit field
> + * (RMI_PDT_INT_SOURCE_COUNT_MASK), so a device can legitimately declare up to
> + * 7 interrupt sources for a single function. irq[] must be able to hold all
> + * of them: rmi_create_function_irq() and rmi_unregister_function() both walk
> + * it up to fn->num_of_irqs.
> */
> -#define RMI_FN_MAX_IRQS 6
> +#define RMI_FN_MAX_IRQS 7
>
> /**
> * struct rmi_function - represents the implementation of an RMI4
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but I noticed a potential
use-after-free and memory leak in the error handling of rmi_driver_probe():
drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c:rmi_driver_probe() {
...
retval = rmi_f34_create_sysfs(rmi_dev);
if (retval)
goto err;
...
err_destroy_functions:
rmi_free_function_list(rmi_dev);
err:
return retval;
}
If rmi_f34_create_sysfs() fails, the code jumps to the err label, skipping
the call to rmi_free_function_list(rmi_dev). Doesn't this leave the function
devices orphaned on the RMI bus with a soon-to-be-freed parent drvdata,
leading to a use-after-free if a driver later attempts to bind to them?
[Severity: Medium]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but I noticed the IRQ domain might
be leaking on probe error paths:
drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c:rmi_driver_probe() {
...
retval = rmi_probe_interrupts(data);
if (retval)
goto err;
...
err_destroy_functions:
rmi_free_function_list(rmi_dev);
err:
return retval;
}
The rmi_probe_interrupts() function allocates a linear IRQ domain using
irq_domain_create_linear(), which is not managed by devres. If any subsequent
initialization step fails, the probe function returns without calling
irq_domain_remove(). Is it expected that the IRQ domain is leaked here?
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but I noticed a potential problem
in how mapped IRQs are handled:
drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_bus.c:rmi_create_function_irq() {
...
fn->irq[i] = irq_create_mapping(drvdata->irqdomain,
fn->irq_pos + i);
irq_set_chip_data(fn->irq[i], fn);
irq_set_chip_and_handler(fn->irq[i], &rmi_irq_chip,
handle_simple_irq);
...
}
If irq_create_mapping() fails due to memory or descriptor exhaustion, it
returns 0. Is it safe to pass 0 directly to irq_set_chip_data() and
irq_set_chip_and_handler() without checking the return value? Could this
overwrite the chip and handler for system IRQ 0?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1787549234.git.98lawweijie@gmail.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-24 6:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-24 5:50 [PATCH 0/2] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - fix two device-controlled out-of-bounds writes Wei Jie Law
2026-08-24 5:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - fix irq[] overrun with 7 interrupt sources Wei Jie Law
2026-08-24 6:05 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-24 12:38 ` Wei Jie Law
2026-08-24 5:50 ` [PATCH 2/2] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - reject a PDT that grows between scans Wei Jie Law
2026-08-24 6:04 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-24 12:38 ` Wei Jie Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260824060521.5B0811F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=98lawweijie@gmail.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.