On 6/25/24 7:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 07:45:50AM -0700, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
My test environment was screwed up during the last version of the patchset.
I was using a kernel which was built previously and didn't pay attention to
commit hash suffix in `uname
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 07:45:50AM -0700, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
> My test environment was screwed up during the last version of the patchset.
> I was using a kernel which was built previously and didn't pay attention to
> commit hash suffix in `uname -r`.
> Human mistake, apologize for that.
Ok,
My test environment was screwed up during the last version of the
patchset. I was using a kernel which was built previously and didn't pay
attention to commit hash suffix in `uname -r`.
Human mistake, apologize for that.
Alex found it while doing TDX testing on x86/vmware on tip.
Do you want
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 01:33:48AM -0700, Alexey Makhalov wrote:
> Caller of vmware_hypercall_slow() can pass NULL into *out1,
> *out2,... *out5. It will lead to a NULL pointer dereference.
>
> Check a pointer for NULL before assigning a value.
I queue your patches and *now* you find this?!
How
Caller of vmware_hypercall_slow() can pass NULL into *out1,
*out2,... *out5. It will lead to a NULL pointer dereference.
Check a pointer for NULL before assigning a value.
Fixes: 666cbb562d05d ("x86/vmware: Introduce VMware hypercall API")
Co-developed-by: Alex James
Signed-off-by: Alex James
5 matches
Mail list logo
