Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211012092513.1349295-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com>
 <CA+U=DsrHSwaiS7mT4rcHT_ZQwfPg+-Hwm-jkib11+m7W-VA_FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vf+DHNxiP5HzsKzzh5hFmr20P8SzOTnLXAvhC5Vb6hzMA@mail.gmail.com> <61c28865036cd40a96f2d1bb4c27fbbb08c2d3a5.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <61c28865036cd40a96f2d1bb4c27fbbb08c2d3a5.camel@perches.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Oct 2021 23:48:46 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfBXuMboFr6czRipXKfBpBNj8Syo9cvhiMXD7VaVaka+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: buffer: Fix double-free in iio_buffers_alloc_sysfs_and_mask()
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@gmail.com>,
        Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:43 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 23:30 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:37 PM Alexandru Ardelean
> > <ardeleanalex@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:18 PM Yang Yingliang
> > > <yangyingliang@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When __iio_buffer_alloc_sysfs_and_mask() failed, 'unwind_idx' should be
> > > > set to 'i - 1' to prevent double-free when cleanup resources.
> []
> >
> > I prefer to see
> >
> > - for (; unwind_idx >= 0; unwind_idx--) {
> > + while (unwind_idx--)
>
> Not the same code as unwind_idx would be decremented before entering
> the code block.

It's kinda cryptic what you are pointing out.

What's needed additionally is to change

- unwind_idx = iio_dev_opaque->attached_buffers_cnt - 1;
+ unwind_idx = i;

> You'd want
>
>         do {
>                 ...
>         } while (unwind_idx--);

Of course not. See above. The usual pattern is

  while (i--)
    do_clean_item(i);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko