From: Rand Deeb <rand.sec96@gmail.com>
To: jonas.gorski@gmail.com
Cc: deeb.rand@confident.ru, khoroshilov@ispras.ru, kvalo@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
lvc-project@linuxtesting.org, m@bues.ch, rand.sec96@gmail.com,
voskresenski.stanislav@confident.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ssb: Fix potential NULL pointer dereference in ssb_device_uevent
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:41:42 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240307134142.169523-1-rand.sec96@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOiHx==HHd3Nu=p5192=tOP-kAzJZUg2iRO2j8UCtcpfGT13nw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:51 PM Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> The NULL check is what needs to be fixed/removed, not the code
> surrounding it. This function will be called from dev_uevent() [1]
> where dev cannot be NULL. So a NULL dereference cannot happen.
>
> Most other implementors of bus_type::uevent have no NULL check. To be
> precise, there is only one other implementor with a NULL check,
> rio_uevent(), and none of the other ones have one. See e.g.
> bcma_device_uevent(), memstick_uevent(), mips_cdmm_uevent(), or
> fsl_mc_bus_uevent().
Hi Jonas,
Thank you for the feedback. To be precise there are actually 8 other
implementors (and potentially more) with a NULL check not just one
(parisc_uevent, serio_uevent, ipack_uevent, pci_uevent, pcmcia_bus_uevent,
rio_uevent, zorro_uevent, and soundbus_ueven).
After a second review, I totally concur with your observations. I quickly
judged, I believed there might be an alternative way to call the function
because it's not the only one with a null check, and actually the patch
version 1 got accknowleded, that's why i'm confused.
Given that null is improbable in this context due to the calls being made
through uevent, we should eliminate the redundant condition. In light of
this, would you recommend sending a new version (v4) of the patch with the
correct title and info, or do you think it would be more appropriate to
submit an entirely fresh patch? i'll also send patches to all of the
implementors.
Best regards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-07 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-06 12:30 [PATCH v3] ssb: Fix potential NULL pointer dereference in ssb_device_uevent Rand Deeb
2024-03-06 15:54 ` Jeff Johnson
2024-03-06 19:51 ` Jonas Gorski
2024-03-07 13:41 ` Rand Deeb [this message]
2024-03-07 18:24 ` Michael Büsch
2024-03-07 21:19 ` Rand Deeb
2024-03-07 21:38 ` Michael Büsch
2024-03-07 22:02 ` James Dutton
2024-03-08 4:50 ` Michael Büsch
2024-03-07 23:29 ` Rand Deeb
2024-03-08 1:04 ` James Dutton
2024-03-08 12:11 ` Rand Deeb
2024-03-08 5:09 ` Michael Büsch
2024-03-08 11:36 ` Rand Deeb
2024-03-08 15:44 ` Michael Büsch
2024-03-12 15:31 ` [v3] ssb: Fix potential NULL pointer dereference in ssb_device_uevent() Kalle Valo
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=20240307134142.169523-1-rand.sec96@gmail.com \
--to=rand.sec96@gmail.com \
--cc=deeb.rand@confident.ru \
--cc=jonas.gorski@gmail.com \
--cc=khoroshilov@ispras.ru \
--cc=kvalo@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lvc-project@linuxtesting.org \
--cc=m@bues.ch \
--cc=voskresenski.stanislav@confident.ru \
/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