[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061012235820.GC24658@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:58:21 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>
Cc: Phil Blundell <philb@....org>, Tim Waugh <tim@...erelk.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix parport_serial_pci_resume() ignoring return value from pci_enable_device()
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:44:24AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> (I guess that the parport_serial_pci_remove() is the right way(tm) to
> remove the device from the system in non-destructive way even in case
> pci_enable_device() failed. Tim?)
I suspect all these kind of patches are introducing additional problems.
This one certainly is. Who's auditing all these patches? I mean _properly_
auditing them rather than just saying "that's a good idea"?
In this case, you're calling parport_serial_pci_remove() in the failure
path. That's fine, but this opens the possibility of it being called
twice - once on resume failure and once when the device/driver is
removed. If this happens, we dereference a NULL pointer. *BAD*.
So, the original without this resume fix is probably far better than
with the fix.
So, patch violently rejected.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
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