On 10/16/2024 2:31 PM, Kuldeep Singh wrote: > > On 10/14/2024 6:38 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 1:19 PM Kuldeep Singh <quic_kuldsing@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> The qcom_tzmem driver currently has exposed APIs that lack validations >>> on required input parameters. This oversight can lead to unexpected null >>> pointer dereference crashes. >>> >> >> The commit message is not true. None of the things you changed below >> can lead to a NULL-pointer dereference.> >>> To address this issue, add sanity for required input parameters. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kuldeep Singh <quic_kuldsing@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c | 6 ++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c >>> index 92b365178235..977e48fec32f 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c >>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c >>> @@ -203,6 +203,9 @@ qcom_tzmem_pool_new(const struct qcom_tzmem_pool_config *config) >>> >>> might_sleep(); >>> >>> + if (!config->policy) >>> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); >> >> This is already handled by the default case of the switch. > > Ack. Need to drop. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c#L218 > > While examining qcom_tzmem_pool_free under the same principle, it > appears the following check is unnecessary. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c#L268 > Bartosz, I am thinking to remove below check in next rev like mentioned above. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c#L268 Do you have any other opinion here? Please let me know. -- Regards Kuldeep
