Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <31fa8ce4-a132-03c6-3272-6f8448270830@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:47:19 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfc: st21nfca: fix possible double free in
 st21nfca_im_recv_dep_res_cb()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org,
        sameo@linux.intel.com, christophe.ricard@gmail.com
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220622065117.23210-1-hbh25y@gmail.com>
 <39279ba0ced207f484b664fe5364fa4ee6271cfb.camel@redhat.com>
From:   Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <39279ba0ced207f484b664fe5364fa4ee6271cfb.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/6/23 17:42, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 14:51 +0800, Hangyu Hua wrote:
>> nfc_tm_data_received will free skb internally when it fails. There is no
>> need to free skb in st21nfca_im_recv_dep_res_cb again.
>>
>> Fix this by setting skb to NULL when nfc_tm_data_received fails.
>>
>> Fixes: 1892bf844ea0 ("NFC: st21nfca: Adding P2P support to st21nfca in Initiator & Target mode")
>> Signed-off-by: Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/nfc/st21nfca/dep.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nfc/st21nfca/dep.c b/drivers/nfc/st21nfca/dep.c
>> index 1ec651e31064..07ac5688011c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nfc/st21nfca/dep.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nfc/st21nfca/dep.c
>> @@ -594,7 +594,8 @@ static void st21nfca_im_recv_dep_res_cb(void *context, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>   			    ST21NFCA_NFC_DEP_PFB_PNI(dep_res->pfb + 1);
>>   			size++;
>>   			skb_pull(skb, size);
>> -			nfc_tm_data_received(info->hdev->ndev, skb);
>> +			if (nfc_tm_data_received(info->hdev->ndev, skb))
>> +				skb = NULL;
> 
> Note that 'skb' not used (nor freed) by this function after this point:
> the next 'break' statement refears to the inner switch, and land to the
> execution flow to the 'return' statement a few lines below.
> kfree_skb(skb) is never reached.
> 
> Paolo
> 

My fault. I messed up two switch statements. I will be more careful next 
time.

hangyu