On 6/23/25 10:35 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 09:01:53PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 6/23/25 19:00, Niklas Cassel wrote: >>> >>> I think it is a litte bit confusing that you attach a KASAN >>> splat to a patch that fixes two different bugs. >>> >>> Surely this KASAN bug can be fixes with only: >>> >>> - list_del(&driver->epf_group); >>> + WARN_ON(!list_empty(&driver->epf_group)); >> >> Yes, with that, you will not get the KASAN warning, but you will get the >> WARN_ON() to trigger unless bug #1 is applied first. But if you apply #1 first, >> then any testing done with that bug fix only will trigger a NULL pointer >> de-reference on the list_del(). > > Ok, let me rephrase :) > > Surely this KASAN bug can be fixed with only: > > - list_del(&driver->epf_group); > > As the bug is that the code is trying to delete a list head, which is just > wrong. > > > A patch 2/2 could add a list_del() to pci_ep_cfs_remove_epf_group() and the > WARN_ON() to pci_epf_remove_cfs(). > > Considering that pci_ep_cfs_remove_epf_group() also frees the memory for > the group, I think it is more correct to use list_del() rather than > list_del_init(), as no one will be able to re-use this group after calling > pci_ep_cfs_remove_epf_group() on it. OK. Sending v2. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
