Commit a54a594d authored by Mathias Nyman's avatar Mathias Nyman Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman

xhci: fix possible null pointer dereference at secondary interrupter removal

Don't try to remove a secondary interrupter that is known to be invalid.
Also check if the interrupter is valid inside the spinlock that protects
the array of interrupters.

Found by smatch static checker
Reported-by: default avatarDan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/ffaa0a1b-5984-4a1f-bfd3-9184630a97b9@moroto.mountain/
Fixes: c99b38c4 ("xhci: add support to allocate several interrupters")
Signed-off-by: default avatarMathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240125152737.2983959-2-mathias.nyman@linux.intel.comSigned-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
parent 9dc29241
...@@ -1861,14 +1861,14 @@ void xhci_remove_secondary_interrupter(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct xhci_interrup ...@@ -1861,14 +1861,14 @@ void xhci_remove_secondary_interrupter(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct xhci_interrup
struct xhci_hcd *xhci = hcd_to_xhci(hcd); struct xhci_hcd *xhci = hcd_to_xhci(hcd);
unsigned int intr_num; unsigned int intr_num;
spin_lock_irq(&xhci->lock);
/* interrupter 0 is primary interrupter, don't touch it */ /* interrupter 0 is primary interrupter, don't touch it */
if (!ir || !ir->intr_num || ir->intr_num >= xhci->max_interrupters) if (!ir || !ir->intr_num || ir->intr_num >= xhci->max_interrupters) {
xhci_dbg(xhci, "Invalid secondary interrupter, can't remove\n"); xhci_dbg(xhci, "Invalid secondary interrupter, can't remove\n");
spin_unlock_irq(&xhci->lock);
/* fixme, should we check xhci->interrupter[intr_num] == ir */ return;
/* fixme locking */ }
spin_lock_irq(&xhci->lock);
intr_num = ir->intr_num; intr_num = ir->intr_num;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment