Message-ID: <c0bc32ca-312f-d699-d19b-f4436c286dc7@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2023 15:24:07 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15] usb: dwc3: dwc3-qcom: Add missing
 platform_device_put() in dwc3_qcom_acpi_register_core
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC:     <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <agross@kernel.org>,
        <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>, <balbi@kernel.org>,
        <lee.jones@linaro.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230303023439.774616-1-zhengyejian1@huawei.com>
 <ZAIW9mkHpKKQyIK+@kroah.com>
 <acc08af9-fdb3-5451-5c53-44784982fe2a@huawei.com>
 <ZAV+9ToKbIPFKJIs@kroah.com>
From:   Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZAV+9ToKbIPFKJIs@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/3/6 13:49, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:26:31AM +0800, Zheng Yejian wrote:
>> On 2023/3/3 23:49, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 10:34:39AM +0800, Zheng Yejian wrote:
>>>> From: Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> commit fa0ef93868a6062babe1144df2807a8b1d4924d2 upstream.
>>>>
>>>> Add the missing platform_device_put() before return from
>>>> dwc3_qcom_acpi_register_core in the error handling case.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@gmail.com>
>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211231113641.31474-1-linmq006@gmail.com
>>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>> CVE: CVE-2023-22995
>>>
>>> That is a bogus CVE, please go revoke it.
>>
>> Agree. I see this CVE and its fixes information from NVD,
>> so try to backport this patch to fix it:
>> Link: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-22995
> 
> Again, this is not a valid bug, the "problem" described can not ever be
> hit in a real system from what I can tell.

Agreed!

> 
>> Then should I just remove the "CVE: " field and send a v2 patch?
>> Or you mean "revoke" the CVE from NVD? I actually don't know how
>> to do that :(
> 
> If you care about CVEs being "real", yes, please get it revoked from the
> NVD.  There is no need to backport it either from what I can determine.
> 

Thanks for you pationce :)

--
Zheng Yejian

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h