Linux Hardware Monitor development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

      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