On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:46:27PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
> On 2024/11/12 19:43, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:20:22AM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
> >> From: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> class_dev_iter_init(struct class_dev_iter *iter, struct class *class, ...)
> >> has return type void, but it does not initialize its output parameter @iter
> >> when suffers class_to_subsys(@class) error, so caller can not detect the
> >> error and call API class_dev_iter_next(@iter) which will dereference wild
> >> pointers of @iter's members as shown by below typical usage:
> >>
> >> // @iter's members are wild pointers
> >> struct class_dev_iter iter;
> >>
> >> // No change in @iter when the error happens.
> >> class_dev_iter_init(&iter, ...);
> >>
> >> // dereference these wild member pointers here.
> >> while (dev = class_dev_iter_next(&iter)) { ... }.
> >>
> >> Actually, all callers of the API have such usage pattern in kernel tree.
> >> Fix by memset() @iter in API *_init() and error checking @iter in *_next().
> >>
> >> Fixes: 7b884b7f24b4 ("driver core: class.c: convert to only use class_to_subsys")
> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > There is no in-kernel broken users of this from what I can tell, right?
> > Otherwise things would have blown up by now, so why is this needed in
> > stable kernels?
> >
>
> For all callers of the API in current kernel tree, the class should have
> been registered successfully when the API is invoking.
Great, so the existing code is just fine :)
> so, could you remove both Fix and stable tag directly?
Nope, sorry. Asking a maintainer that gets hundreds of patches to
hand-edit them does not scale.
But really, as all in-kernel users are just fine, why add additional
code if it's not needed? THat's just going to increase our maintance
burden for the next 40+ years for no good reason.
thanks,
greg k-h
