On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 3:36 AM Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Dongliang,
>
> On 1/21/22 08:58, Dongliang Mu wrote:
> [...]>> BTW, as you mentioned, dev->next_siblings is used in struct
> >> peak_usb_adapter::dev_free() (i.e., pcan_usb_fd_free or
> >> pcan_usb_pro_free), how about the following path?
> >>
> >> peak_usb_probe
> >> -> peak_usb_create_dev (goto adap_dev_free;)
> >> -> dev->adapter->dev_free()
> >> -> pcan_usb_fd_free or pcan_usb_pro_free (This function uses
> >> next_siblings as condition elements)
> >>
> >> static void pcan_usb_fd_free(struct peak_usb_device *dev)
> >> {
> >> /* last device: can free shared objects now */
> >> if (!dev->prev_siblings && !dev->next_siblings) {
> >> struct pcan_usb_fd_device *pdev =
> >> container_of(dev, struct pcan_usb_fd_device, dev);
> >>
> >> /* free commands buffer */
> >> kfree(pdev->cmd_buffer_addr);
> >>
> >> /* free usb interface object */
> >> kfree(pdev->usb_if);
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> If next_siblings is not NULL, will it lead to the missing free of
> >> cmd_buffer_addr and usb_if?
> >
> > The answer is No. Forget my silly thought.
> >
>
> Yeah, it seems like (at least based on code), that this dangling pointer
> is not dangerous, since nothing accesses it. And next_siblings
> _guaranteed_ to be NULL, since dev->next_siblings is set NULL in
> disconnect()
Yes, you're right. As a security researcher, I am sensitive to such
dangling pointers.
As its nullifying site is across functions, I suggest developers
remove this dangling pointer in case that any newly added code in this
function or before the nullifying location would touch next_siblings.
If Pavel and others think it's fine, then it's time to close this patch.
>
>
>
>
> With regards,
> Pavel Skripkin
