[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:37:45 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>
Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@....com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wusb: Use sizeof struct rather than pointer
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:51:14 +0100
Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com> wrote:
> The sizeof the struct should be used rather than sizeof the pointer
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> Unless I am mistaken?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c b/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> index 4516c36..857f6e9 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
> @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ int wusb_dev_sec_add(struct wusbhc *wusbhc,
>
> result = usb_get_descriptor(usb_dev, USB_DT_SECURITY,
> 0, secd, sizeof(struct usb_security_descriptor));
> - if (result < sizeof(secd)) {
> + if (result < sizeof(*secd)) {
> dev_err(dev, "Can't read security descriptor or "
> "not enough data: %d\n", result);
> goto out;
ick, code's a bit of a mess.
This:
--- a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c~wusb-use-sizeof-struct-rather-than-pointer
+++ a/drivers/usb/wusbcore/security.c
@@ -205,15 +205,15 @@ int wusb_dev_sec_add(struct wusbhc *wusb
const void *itr, *top;
char buf[64];
- secd = kmalloc(sizeof(struct usb_security_descriptor), GFP_KERNEL);
+ secd = kmalloc(sizeof(*secd), GFP_KERNEL);
if (secd == NULL) {
result = -ENOMEM;
goto out;
}
- result = usb_get_descriptor(usb_dev, USB_DT_SECURITY,
- 0, secd, sizeof(struct usb_security_descriptor));
- if (result < sizeof(secd)) {
+ result = usb_get_descriptor(usb_dev, USB_DT_SECURITY, 0, secd,
+ sizeof(*secd));
+ if (result < sizeof(*secd)) {
dev_err(dev, "Can't read security descriptor or "
"not enough data: %d\n", result);
goto out;
_
at least makes things consistent.
But I wonder if the code will still work. Because we then go on to do
secd_size = le16_to_cpu(secd->wTotalLength);
secd = krealloc(secd, secd_size, GFP_KERNEL);
which implies (to me) that the thing we read from the device might
indeed have been smaller than we expected, in which case the
newly-fixed check will cause a failure.
That's probably not the case, but it needs checking by someone who
knows what's going on here, please
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists