On 10/22/2024 12:27 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 07:43, Kuldeep Singh <quic_kuldsing@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > No, let's keep the NULL-pointer check and add it to qcom_tzmem_free(), > I'm not against it. I was just saying that in the latter case it will > already be handled by the radix tree lookup. Hey, I think you misread my comment. Let me explain more. As agreed, Will drop (!config->policy) check from qcom_tzmem_pool_new because it's already present. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c#L218 Keep (!vaddr) check in qcom_tzmem_free as discussed above. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c#L411 And last thing, like we don't check (!pool) in qcom_tzmem_alloc as it cannot be null, same way I believe (!pool) is unnecessary in qcom_tzmem_pool_free as qcom_tzmem_pool_new should return valid pool and if not, should be handled by calling driver. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c#L369 https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/drivers/firmware/qcom/qcom_tzmem.c#L268 -- Regards Kuldeep
