From: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
To: Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Sujith Thomas <sujith.thomas@intel.com>,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_menlow: set cdev after null device check to avoid null pointer dereference
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:18:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160328181805.GC26086@dvhart-mobl5.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1459181919-13825-1-git-send-email-colin.king@canonical.com>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 05:18:39PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>
> intel_menlow_memory_remove sanity checks to see if device is null, however,
> this check is performed after we have already passed device into a call
> to acpi_driver_data. If device is null, then acpi_driver_data will produce
> a null pointer dereference on device. The correct action is to sanity check
> device, then assign cdev, then check if cdev is null.
>
Hrm, looking at this locally, that all makes sense.
Taking a step back however, I notice that intel_menlow_memory_remove is an ops
function pointer inside the acpi_driver structure itself, which is called from
acpi_device_remove() (and probe) (drivers/acpi/bus.c). This already verifies
acpi_driver is not NULL and can't get acpi_driver if acpi_device is NULL. So
unless there is some other use case for this callback I'm unaware of (certainly
possible) it appears to be totally redundant to do this checking here.
+Rafael - is there a best practices for these acpi callbacks with respect to
input validation?
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel_menlow.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_menlow.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_menlow.c
> index 0a919d8..185a1bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_menlow.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_menlow.c
> @@ -196,9 +196,13 @@ static int intel_menlow_memory_add(struct acpi_device *device)
>
> static int intel_menlow_memory_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> - struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev = acpi_driver_data(device);
> + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
> +
> + if (!device)
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (!device || !cdev)
> + cdev = acpi_driver_data(device);
> + if (!cdev)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> sysfs_remove_link(&device->dev.kobj, "thermal_cooling");
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-28 18:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-28 16:18 Colin King
2016-03-28 18:18 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2016-03-29 13:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-04-10 2:34 ` Darren Hart
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=20160328181805.GC26086@dvhart-mobl5.amr.corp.intel.com \
--to=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=colin.king@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sujith.thomas@intel.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®