Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] bluetooth: unregister correct BTPROTO for CMTP

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 12:03:36 +0200

On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:24:20AM -0700, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:40 AM Simon Horman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 09:52:58AM +0800, Chenyuan Mi wrote:
> > > On error unregister BTPROTO_CMTP to match the registration earlier in
> > > the same code-path. Without this change BTPROTO_HIDP is incorrectly
> > > unregistered.
> > >
> > > This bug does not appear to cause serious security problem.
> > >
> > > The function 'bt_sock_unregister' takes its parameter as an index and
> > > NULLs the corresponding element of 'bt_proto' which is an array of
> > > pointers. When 'bt_proto' dereferences each element, it would check
> > > whether the element is empty or not. Therefore, the problem of null
> > > pointer deference does not occur.
> > >
> > > Found by inspection.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 8c8de589cedd ("Bluetooth: Added /proc/net/cmtp via bt_procfs_init()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Chenyuan Mi <[email-masked]>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
> >
> > > ---
> > >  net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c b/net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c
> > > index 96d49d9fae96..cf4370055ce2 100644
> > > --- a/net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c
> > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/cmtp/sock.c
> > > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ int cmtp_init_sockets(void)
> > >       err = bt_procfs_init(&init_net, "cmtp", &cmtp_sk_list, NULL);
> > >       if (err < 0) {
> > >               BT_ERR("Failed to create CMTP proc file");
> > > -             bt_sock_unregister(BTPROTO_HIDP);
> > > +             bt_sock_unregister(BTPROTO_CMTP);
> > >               goto error;
> > >       }
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> 
> This one does not appear on pw for some reason, not sure if that was
> because of subject or what, so please resubmit it, don't forget to add
> Reviewed-by you got in this thread.

Yes, curious.

Perhaps it is due to the 'net-next' in the subject prefix.
I previously advised adding that, which I now see was
in correct as this is a Bluetooth patch. Sorry about that.