[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed4nih$gb0$2@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:05:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: daw@...berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [S390] cio: kernel stack overflow.
Thanks for pointing out that in most cases there was immediately
preceding code that zeroes out the whole struct using kzalloc() or
memset(.., 0, ..). Sorry that I overlooked that; my mistake. That
takes care of all but one of these. But in the interests of caution,
let me ask about the following one:
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>- cdev->id = (struct ccw_device_id) {
>- .cu_type = cdev->private->senseid.cu_type,
>- .cu_model = cdev->private->senseid.cu_model,
>- .dev_type = cdev->private->senseid.dev_type,
>- .dev_model = cdev->private->senseid.dev_model,
>- };
>+ cdev->id.cu_type = cdev->private->senseid.cu_type;
>+ cdev->id.cu_model = cdev->private->senseid.cu_model;
>+ cdev->id.dev_type = cdev->private->senseid.dev_type;
>+ cdev->id.dev_model = cdev->private->senseid.dev_model;
I don't see any obvious place that zeroes out cdev->id.
In particular, it looks like cdev->id.match_flags and .driver_info
are never cleared (i.e., they retain whatever old garbage they had
before). More importantly, if anyone ever adds any more fields to
struct ccw_device_id, then they will also be retain old garbage values,
which is a maintenance pitfall. Is this right, or did I miss something
again?
-
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