From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753163AbbIGOLl (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 10:11:41 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:40861 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751135AbbIGOLf (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 10:11:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:11:30 +0100 From: Luis Henriques To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Minchan Kim , Nitin Gupta , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: fix possible use after free in zcomp_create() Message-ID: <20150907141130.GH10075@ares> References: <1441622033-8358-1-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com> <20150907111148.GB27956@swordfish> <20150907125343.GG10075@ares> <20150907133332.GA539@swordfish> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20150907133332.GA539@swordfish> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 10:33:32PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (09/07/15 13:53), Luis Henriques wrote: > > > On (09/07/15 11:33), Luis Henriques wrote: > > > > zcomp_create() verifies the success of zcomp_strm_{multi,siggle}_create() > > > > through comp->stream, which can potentially be pointing to memory that was > > > > freed if these functions returned an error. > > > > > > > > > > good catch. > > > > > > we probably better start checking the zcomp_strm_multi_create()/ > > > zcomp_strm_single_create() status in zcomp_create(); that's much > > > more obvious and that's why we return it in the first place. > > > > > > what do you think? > > > > > > > Yep, that's probably a better solution. > > > > Acked-by: Luis Henriques > > > > Oh, thanks. I don't mind if you will re-submit it; I just did minor > changes to our fix. Or I can handle it. I'm OK with either way. Ok, I'll be sending v2 in a minute. >Btw, did you hit that problem or you reviewed the code? > I've found this while looking at the code (I wouldn't really call it a "code review"... :-)) Cheers, -- Luís