linux-kernel - Re: ide_register

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:29:31 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	"Peter Teoh" <htmldeveloper@...il.com>
Cc:	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ide_register_hw(): buggy code


Hi,

On Monday 03 March 2008, Peter Teoh wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > The Coverity checker spotted the following bogus change to
> >  ide_register_hw() in commit 9e016a719209d95338e314b46c3012cc7feaaeec:
> >
> >  <--  snip  -->
> >
> >  ...
> >  +               hwif = ide_deprecated_find_port(hw->io_ports[IDE_DATA_OFFSET]);
> >  +               index = hwif->index;
> >  +               if (hwif)
> >  +                       goto found;
> >                 for (index = 0; index < MAX_HWIFS; index++)
> >  ...
> >
> >  <--  snip  -->
> >
> >  It's impossible to reach the for() loop without Oopsing before.

[ iff free hwif is not found (unlikely case) ]

> >  Can you either fix this for 2.6.25 or push your patch that removes
> >  ide_register_hw() for 2.6.25?
> >
> 
> My question is:
> 
> a.   why is "retry=1", and then the do while loop always end up the
> loop being one round executed only?   Why not just remove the while
> loop entirely?

the whole ide_register_hw() is already gone in IDE tree
(these patches are scheduled for 2.6.26)

> b.   not sure if your statement above implied this, but checking for
> hwif!=0 should be before index.  ???
> 
> c.   "index = hwif->index;" should not be there, but after "found".
> Is that correct?

Yes, could you please re-do your patch to contain:

- only 'hwif->index' change
- proper patch description
- Signed-off-by: line

so I could merge it?

Thanks,
Bart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/