netdev - Re: [PATCH] 3c59x: fix build failure on !CONFIG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:48:00 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Cc:	namhyung@...il.com, klassert@...hematik.tu-chemnitz.de,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 3c59x: fix build failure on !CONFIG_PCI

From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:58:36 -0800

> On 11/16/10 18:22, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> 2010-11-16 (ȭ), 09:14 -0800, Randy Dunlap:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>> 
>> Hi, Randy
>> 
>> 
>>> Interesting patch.  I have reported this build error and looked
>>> into fixing it, but did not come up with this solution.
>>>
>>> Looking at it more:  if CONFIG_PCI is not enabled, DEVICE_PCI() is NULL.
>>> That makes VORTEX_PCI() (with or without your patch) have a value of NULL.
>>>
>>> Is the line with the reported syntax error (3211) executed in
>>> function acpi_set_WOL() ?  If so, let's assume that vp->enable_wol is true.
>>> Then what happens on line 3211 (or 3213 after your patch)?
>>>
>>> 		if (VORTEX_PCI(vp)->current_state < PCI_D3hot)
>>> 			return;
>>>
>>> or if I am really confuzed this morning, please tell me how it works.
>>>
>> 
>> At first glance, I've noticed that the code above could make a NULL
>> dereference so I added NULL check prior to the line.
>> 
>> But after reading more code I realized that other pci-functions called
>> in acpi_set_WOL() would not work with NULL pci_dev pointer also. And I
>> found all callers of the acpi_set_WOL() already checked NULL pointer
>> before the call. Finally I could remove the NULL check and leave the
>> code as is. That's how it works. :)
> 
> I see.  and concur.  Thanks for the explanation.

Looks good to me too, applied, thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html