Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Nov 2023 11:45:05 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] nfc: virtual_ncidev: Add variable to check if ndev is running | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> |
| |
On 20/11/2023 11:39, Nguyen Dinh Phi wrote: >>>> mutex_lock(&vdev->mtx); >>>> kfree_skb(vdev->send_buff); >>>> vdev->send_buff = NULL; >>>> + vdev->running = false; >>>> mutex_unlock(&vdev->mtx); >>>> >>>> return 0; >>>> @@ -50,7 +55,7 @@ static int virtual_nci_send(struct nci_dev *ndev, struct sk_buff *skb) >>>> struct virtual_nci_dev *vdev = nci_get_drvdata(ndev); >>>> >>>> mutex_lock(&vdev->mtx); >>>> - if (vdev->send_buff) { >>>> + if (vdev->send_buff || !vdev->running) { >>> >>> Dear Krzysztof, >>> >>> I agree this defensive code. >>> But i think NFC submodule has to avoid this situation.(calling send function of closed nci_dev) >>> Could you check this? >> >> This code looks not effective. At this point vdev->send_buff is always >> false, so the additional check would not bring any value. >> >> I don't see this fixing anything. Syzbot also does not seem to agree. >> >> Nguyen, please test your patches against syzbot *before* sending them. >> If you claim this fixes the report, please provide me the link to syzbot >> test results confirming it is fixed. >> >> I looked at syzbot dashboard and do not see this issue fixed with this >> patch. >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > > Hi Krzysztof, > > I've submitted it to syzbot, it is the test request that created at > [2023/11/20 09:39] in dashboard link > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=6eb09d75211863f15e3e
...and I see there two errors.
I don't know, maybe I miss something obvious (our brains like to do it sometimes), but please explain me how this could fix anything?
Best regards, Krzysztof
| |