Hi, this bug seems to have not been fixed, it still exists in the current main branch in linux kernel.
Is there anything blocking the bug fixing?
--------
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:24:20AM -0700, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:40 AM Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 09:52:58AM +0800, Chenyuan Mi wrote:
> > > On error unregister BTPROTO_CMTP to match the registration earlier
> > > in the same code-path. Without this change BTPROTO_HIDP is
> > > incorrectly unregistered.
> > >
> > > This bug does not appear to cause serious security problem.
> > >
> > > The function 'bt_sock_unregister' takes its parameter as an index
> > > and NULLs the corresponding element of 'bt_proto' which is an
> > > array of pointers. When 'bt_proto' dereferences each element, it
> > > would check whether the element is empty or not. Therefore, the
> > > problem of null pointer deference does not occur.
> > >
> > > Found by inspection.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 8c8de589cedd ("Bluetooth: Added /proc/net/cmtp via
> > > bt_procfs_init()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Chenyuan Mi <michenyuan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > ---
> > > net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c b/net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c
> > > index 96d49d9fae96..cf4370055ce2 100644
> > > --- a/net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c
> > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c
> > > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ int cmtp_init_sockets(void)
> > > err = bt_procfs_init(&init_net, "cmtp", &cmtp_sk_list, NULL);
> > > if (err < 0) {
> > > BT_ERR("Failed to create CMTP proc file");
> > > - bt_sock_unregister(BTPROTO_HIDP);
> > > + bt_sock_unregister(BTPROTO_CMTP);
> > > goto error;
> > > }
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
>
> This one does not appear on pw for some reason, not sure if that was
> because of subject or what, so please resubmit it, don't forget to add
> Reviewed-by you got in this thread.
Yes, curious.
Perhaps it is due to the 'net-next' in the subject prefix.
I previously advised adding that, which I now see was in correct as this is a Bluetooth patch. Sorry about that.
