[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48834500.2050507@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:00:32 +0200
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: JiSheng Zhang <jszhang3@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
CC: linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
Kristian Høgsberg <krh@...planet.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firewire:queue the right number of data
JiSheng Zhang wrote at LKML:
> Hi,
>
> There will be 4 padding bytes in struct fw_cdev_event_response on some platforms
> The member:__u32 data will point to these padding bytes. While queue the
> response and data in complete_transaction in fw-cdev.c, it will queue like this:
> |response(excluding padding bytes)|4 padding bytes|4 padding bytes|data.
> It queue 4 extra bytes. That is to say it use "&response + sizeof(response)"
> while other place of kernel and userspace library use "&response + offsetof
> (typeof(response), data)". So it will lost the last 4 bytes of data.This patch
> can fix it while not changing the struct definition.
>
> Sorry for open a new ticket.
>
> Signed-off-by: JiSheng Zhang <jszhang3@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
>
> --- old/drivers/firewire/fw-cdev.c
> +++ new/drivers/firewire/fw-cdev.c
> @@ -382,9 +382,9 @@
>
> response->response.type = FW_CDEV_EVENT_RESPONSE;
> response->response.rcode = rcode;
> - queue_event(client, &response->event,
> - &response->response, sizeof(response->response),
> - response->response.data, response->response.length);
> + queue_event(client, &response->event, &response->response,
> + sizeof(response->response) + response->response.length,
> + NULL, 0);
> }
>
> static int ioctl_send_request(struct client *client, void *buffer)
I tested it now on i686, x86-64, and x86-64 with i686 userland, using
firecontrol and gscanbus. As discussed, they got corrupted block read
responses on x86-64 and on x86-64 with i686 userland. The patch fixes this.
I committed it to linux1394-2.6.git#fixes and intend to send it upstream
at the end of the week or so. Thanks for spotting this bug.
One point about which I am not sure about yet is what happens if there
are multiple events queued up before the client can read() them. The
tests which I did so far involved only a single event queued and
dequeued at a time.
PS:
I removed a rule from linux1394-devel's header filters which matched
your previous posts. (Message has priority, but no X-Mailer/User-Agent)
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- -=== =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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