linux-kernel - Re: ide_register

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]

Message-Id: <200803042157.23592.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:57:22 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	"Peter Teoh" <htmldeveloper@...il.com>
Cc:	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ide_register_hw(): buggy code

On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Peter Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
> <bzolnier@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi,
> >
> >
> >  On Monday 03 March 2008, Peter Teoh wrote:
> >  > On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >  > > The Coverity checker spotted the following bogus change to
> >  > >  ide_register_hw() in commit 9e016a719209d95338e314b46c3012cc7feaaeec:
> >  > >
> >  > >  <--  snip  -->
> >  > >
> >  > >  ...
> >  > >  +               hwif = ide_deprecated_find_port(hw->io_ports[IDE_DATA_OFFSET]);
> >  > >  +               index = hwif->index;
> >  > >  +               if (hwif)
> >  > >  +                       goto found;
> >  > >                 for (index = 0; index < MAX_HWIFS; index++)
> >  > >  ...
> >  > >
> >  > >  <--  snip  -->
> >  > >
> >  > >  It's impossible to reach the for() loop without Oopsing before.
> >
> >  [ iff free hwif is not found (unlikely case) ]
> >
> >
> >  > >  Can you either fix this for 2.6.25 or push your patch that removes
> >  > >  ide_register_hw() for 2.6.25?
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > My question is:
> >  >
> >  > a.   why is "retry=1", and then the do while loop always end up the
> >  > loop being one round executed only?   Why not just remove the while
> >  > loop entirely?
> >
> >  the whole ide_register_hw() is already gone in IDE tree
> >  (these patches are scheduled for 2.6.26)
> >
> >
> >  > b.   not sure if your statement above implied this, but checking for
> >  > hwif!=0 should be before index.  ???
> >  >
> >  > c.   "index = hwif->index;" should not be there, but after "found".
> >  > Is that correct?
> >
> >  Yes, could you please re-do your patch to contain:
> >
> >  - only 'hwif->index' change
> >  - proper patch description
> >  - Signed-off-by: line
> >
> >  so I could merge it?
> 
> 
> Description:
> 
> Relocating the index to come after finding the hwif pointer.

applied, thanks
--
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/