| Subject | Re: [PATCH 064/190] Revert "nfc: s3fwrn5: replace the assertion with a WARN_ON" | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> | Date | Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:29:57 +0200 |
| |
On 21/04/2021 14:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This reverts commit 615f22f58029aa747b12768985e7f91cd053daa2. > > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad > faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known > malicious" changes. The result of these submissions can be found in a > paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy > entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University > of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota). > > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if > they actually are a valid fix. Until that work is complete, remove this > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the > codebase. > > Cc: Aditya Pakki <pakki001@umn.edu> > Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > --- > drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/firmware.c | 5 +---- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/firmware.c b/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/firmware.c > index eb5d7a5beac7..f77f183c9bd0 100644 > --- a/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/firmware.c > +++ b/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/firmware.c > @@ -492,10 +492,7 @@ int s3fwrn5_fw_recv_frame(struct nci_dev *ndev, struct sk_buff *skb) > struct s3fwrn5_info *info = nci_get_drvdata(ndev); > struct s3fwrn5_fw_info *fw_info = &info->fw_info; > > - if (WARN_ON(fw_info->rsp)) { > - kfree_skb(skb); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > + BUG_ON(fw_info->rsp);
It took me some time to understand this but the original commit looks correct. The recv_frame functions s3fwrn5_recv_frame() or nci_recv_frame() should free the skb buffer on errors. Here, the s3fwrn5_fw_recv_frame() should be called only after sending a FW msg and is expected to have fw_info->rsp=NULL. Otherwise it could mean that frame came twice or it came when we did not ask for it.
Original code looks good, please drop the revert.
Best regards, Krzysztof
|