fixes for ioctl() of usbtmc in testing tree

fixes for ioctl() of usbtmc in testing tree

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:20:42PM +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
> 
> Zitat von Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>:
> 
> > On Mo, 2018-09-24 at 10:56 +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
> > > Zitat von Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > how should I mark fixes intended for the testing branch?
> > > > > I got one for the usbtmc driver.
> > > >
> > > > Just send it like normal.  You can do a "Fixes:" tag with the sha1, that
> > > > should be fine.  I need to push out my testing branch now, 0-day seems
> > > > to be stalled :(
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Big sorry! There is a superflous kmalloc line 1270 til 1272.
> > > Shall I send the fix?
> > 
> > Damn. That is the same allocation repeated, not a reuse of the buffer.
> > I'll resend. There is also a leak in the error case.
> > 
> 
> I do not see a leak in the error case. kfree(NULL) should be ok.
> Sorry, I referred the line 1270 to the mail of Dan Carpenter. I mean the
> lines:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> index 0fcb81a1399b..dfbcf418dad7 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> @@ -1895,10 +1895,6 @@ static int usbtmc_ioctl_request(struct
> usbtmc_device_data *data,
>         if (res)
>                 return -EFAULT;
> 
> -       buffer = kmalloc(request.req.wLength, GFP_KERNEL);
> -       if (!buffer)
> -               return -ENOMEM;
> -
>         if (request.req.wLength > USBTMC_BUFSIZE)
>                 return -EMSGSIZE;
> 
> @Oliver: Where do send (resend) the fix? Is this an official fix or
> do you just fix your internal build system?
> And I still have to make an official fix, isn't it?

Yes, you need to send a "real" patch for anyone to be able to pick it
up.

thanks,

greg k-h

fixes for ioctl() of usbtmc in testing tree

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:30:41AM +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
> 
> Zitat von Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:20:42PM +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
> > > 
> > > Zitat von Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>:
> > > 
> > > > On Mo, 2018-09-24 at 10:56 +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
> > > > > Zitat von Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > how should I mark fixes intended for the testing branch?
> > > > > > > I got one for the usbtmc driver.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just send it like normal.  You can do a "Fixes:" tag with the
> > > sha1, that
> > > > > > should be fine.  I need to push out my testing branch now, 0-day seems
> > > > > > to be stalled :(
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Big sorry! There is a superflous kmalloc line 1270 til 1272.
> > > > > Shall I send the fix?
> > > >
> > > > Damn. That is the same allocation repeated, not a reuse of the buffer.
> > > > I'll resend. There is also a leak in the error case.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I do not see a leak in the error case. kfree(NULL) should be ok.
> > > Sorry, I referred the line 1270 to the mail of Dan Carpenter. I mean the
> > > lines:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> > > index 0fcb81a1399b..dfbcf418dad7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> > > @@ -1895,10 +1895,6 @@ static int usbtmc_ioctl_request(struct
> > > usbtmc_device_data *data,
> > >         if (res)
> > >                 return -EFAULT;
> > > 
> > > -       buffer = kmalloc(request.req.wLength, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > -       if (!buffer)
> > > -               return -ENOMEM;
> > > -
> > >         if (request.req.wLength > USBTMC_BUFSIZE)
> > >                 return -EMSGSIZE;
> > > 
> > > @Oliver: Where do send (resend) the fix? Is this an official fix or
> > > do you just fix your internal build system?
> > > And I still have to make an official fix, isn't it?
> > 
> > Yes, you need to send a "real" patch for anyone to be able to pick it
> > up.
> 
> I sent the patch series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10612963/
> Anything else I can do to relieve my bad conscience?

All now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h

fixes for ioctl() of usbtmc in testing tree

[Guido Kiener]

Zitat von Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:20:42PM +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
>>
>> Zitat von Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>:
>>
>> > On Mo, 2018-09-24 at 10:56 +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
>> > > Zitat von Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>> > >
>> > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > how should I mark fixes intended for the testing branch?
>> > > > > I got one for the usbtmc driver.
>> > > >
>> > > > Just send it like normal.  You can do a "Fixes:" tag with the  
>> sha1, that
>> > > > should be fine.  I need to push out my testing branch now, 0-day seems
>> > > > to be stalled :(
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Big sorry! There is a superflous kmalloc line 1270 til 1272.
>> > > Shall I send the fix?
>> >
>> > Damn. That is the same allocation repeated, not a reuse of the buffer.
>> > I'll resend. There is also a leak in the error case.
>> >
>>
>> I do not see a leak in the error case. kfree(NULL) should be ok.
>> Sorry, I referred the line 1270 to the mail of Dan Carpenter. I mean the
>> lines:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
>> index 0fcb81a1399b..dfbcf418dad7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
>> @@ -1895,10 +1895,6 @@ static int usbtmc_ioctl_request(struct
>> usbtmc_device_data *data,
>>         if (res)
>>                 return -EFAULT;
>>
>> -       buffer = kmalloc(request.req.wLength, GFP_KERNEL);
>> -       if (!buffer)
>> -               return -ENOMEM;
>> -
>>         if (request.req.wLength > USBTMC_BUFSIZE)
>>                 return -EMSGSIZE;
>>
>> @Oliver: Where do send (resend) the fix? Is this an official fix or
>> do you just fix your internal build system?
>> And I still have to make an official fix, isn't it?
>
> Yes, you need to send a "real" patch for anyone to be able to pick it
> up.

I sent the patch series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10612963/
Anything else I can do to relieve my bad conscience?

Regards,

Guido

fixes for ioctl() of usbtmc in testing tree

[Guido Kiener]

Zitat von Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>:

> On Mo, 2018-09-24 at 10:56 +0000, guido@kiener-muenchen.de wrote:
>> Zitat von Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>:
>>
>> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > how should I mark fixes intended for the testing branch?
>> > > I got one for the usbtmc driver.
>> >
>> > Just send it like normal.  You can do a "Fixes:" tag with the sha1, that
>> > should be fine.  I need to push out my testing branch now, 0-day seems
>> > to be stalled :(
>> >
>>
>> Big sorry! There is a superflous kmalloc line 1270 til 1272.
>> Shall I send the fix?
>
> Damn. That is the same allocation repeated, not a reuse of the buffer.
> I'll resend. There is also a leak in the error case.
>

I do not see a leak in the error case. kfree(NULL) should be ok.
Sorry, I referred the line 1270 to the mail of Dan Carpenter. I mean the
lines:


@Oliver: Where do send (resend) the fix? Is this an official fix or
do you just fix your internal build system?
And I still have to make an official fix, isn't it?

Guido

diff --git a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
index 0fcb81a1399b..dfbcf418dad7 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
@@ -1895,10 +1895,6 @@ static int usbtmc_ioctl_request(struct  
usbtmc_device_data *data,
         if (res)
                 return -EFAULT;

-       buffer = kmalloc(request.req.wLength, GFP_KERNEL);
-       if (!buffer)
-               return -ENOMEM;
-
         if (request.req.wLength > USBTMC_BUFSIZE)
                 return -EMSGSIZE;