linux-kernel - Re: [-mm patch] aic7xxx: check irq validity (was Re: 2.6.18-mm2)

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]

Message-ID: <451F049A.1010404@garzik.org>
Date:	Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:58:18 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...e.fr>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	"J.A. Magall??n" <jamagallon@....com>,
	"Linux-Kernel," <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [-mm patch] aic7xxx: check irq validity (was Re: 2.6.18-mm2)

Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 12:43:24AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Ar Gwe, 2006-09-29 am 23:50 +0000, ysgrifennodd Frederik Deweerdt:
>>> Does this patch makes sense in that case? If yes, I'll put up a patch
>>> for the remaining cases in the drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/ directory.
>>> Also, aic7xxx's coding style would put parenthesis around the returned
>>> value, should I follow it?
>> Yes - but perhaps with a warning message so users know why ?
>>
>> As to coding style - kernel style is unbracketed so I wouldnt worry
>> about either.
>>
> Thanks for the advices. 
> 
> The following patch checks whenever the irq is valid before issuing a
> request_irq() for AIC7XXX and AIC79XX. An error message is displayed to
> let the user know what went wrong.
> 
> Regards,
> Frederik
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederik Deweerdt <frederik.deweerdt@...il.com>

Actually, rather than adding this check to every driver, I would rather 
do something like the attached patch:  create a pci_request_irq(), and 
pass a struct pci_device to it.  Then the driver author doesn't have to 
worry about such details.

	Jeff



View attachment "patch" of type "text/plain" (2026 bytes)