From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Guenter Roeck" <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: Fix potential UAF in pec_store
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 05:18:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260821051843.8CD1D1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260821050808.667204-1-linux@roeck-us.net>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [Medium] The function `pec_store()` mixes `goto`-based error handling (`goto put;`) with scope-based cleanup (`scoped_guard`), which violates subsystem guidelines.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] hwmon: Fix potential UAF in pec_store ---
commit faaeb6b5ca43335968fb5512ec894ab84e5edc9c
Author: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
hwmon: Fix potential UAF in pec_store
This patch fixes a potential use-after-free in pec_store() by replacing
guard() with scoped_guard(). The previous guard() usage attempted to unlock
the mutex after dropping the final device reference when jumping to the 'put'
label.
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/hwmon.c b/drivers/hwmon/hwmon.c
> index 29dc90a2c3fe7..8cf717ae8b1dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/hwmon.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/hwmon.c
> @@ -371,18 +371,17 @@ static ssize_t pec_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> * handling is not required.
> */
> hwdev = to_hwmon_device(hdev);
> - guard(mutex)(&hwdev->lock);
> - if (hwdev->chip->ops->write) {
> - err = hwdev->chip->ops->write(hdev, hwmon_chip, hwmon_chip_pec, 0, val);
> - if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> - goto put;
> + scoped_guard(mutex, &hwdev->lock) {
> + if (hwdev->chip->ops->write) {
> + err = hwdev->chip->ops->write(hdev, hwmon_chip, hwmon_chip_pec, 0, val);
> + if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> + goto put;
[Severity: Medium]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this code mix goto-based error
handling with scope-based cleanup helpers?
According to the subsystem guidelines in include/linux/cleanup.h, mixing goto
and cleanup helpers in the same function creates confusing ownership semantics
and should be avoided. Would it be better to also convert the 'hdev' reference
management to use __free(put_device) to fully eliminate the goto pattern?
> + }
> + if (!val)
> + client->flags &= ~I2C_CLIENT_PEC;
> + else
> + client->flags |= I2C_CLIENT_PEC;
> }
> -
> - if (!val)
> - client->flags &= ~I2C_CLIENT_PEC;
> - else
> - client->flags |= I2C_CLIENT_PEC;
> -
> err = count;
> put:
> put_device(hdev);
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260821050808.667204-1-linux@roeck-us.net?part=1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-21 5:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-21 5:08 [PATCH] hwmon: Fix potential UAF in pec_store Guenter Roeck
2026-08-21 5:18 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=20260821051843.8CD1D1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox