linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix OOPS in show

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: <46BC666F.6010409@openvz.org>
Date:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:21:51 +0400
From:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To:	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
CC:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix OOPS in show_uevent()

Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:23:56 +0200,
> "Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org> wrote:
> 
>> But we still don't update the remaining buffer size and the remaining
>> array fields which are left after the call. Shouldn't we instead just
>> change the:
>>    int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev,
>>                                 char **envp, int num_envp,
>>                                 char *buffer, int buffer_size);
>> to:
>>   int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev,
>>                                char **envp, int num_envp, int *cur_index,
>>                                char *buffer, int buffer_size, int *cur_len);
>>
>> like we do for:
>>   int add_uevent_var(char **envp, int num_envp, int *cur_index,
>>                                   char *buffer, int buffer_size, int *cur_len,
>>                                   const char *format, ...)
>>
>> and along with the change of the callers, we would update the values
>> properly, so the next call has the correct numbers? There are 6
>> classes and something like 12 buses using this method, so it shouldn't
>> be too much trouble.

isn't it better to change
    int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev,
                                 char **envp, int num_envp,
                                 char *buffer, int buffer_size);
to
    int (*dev_uevent)(struct device *dev,
                                 char **envp, int num_envp,
                                 char **buffer);
and alter the buffer pointer inside?


> Sounds like a sensible approach. We may want the remaining non-users to
> add_uevent_var() at the same time, I guess.
> 

Thanks,
Pavel
-
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/