linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/9] drivers/video: Correct code taking the size of a pointer

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: <4B2A855C.8080003@gmx.de>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:24:12 +0100
From:	Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>, JosephChan@....com.tw,
	Scott Fang <ScottFang@...tech.com.cn>,
	linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] drivers/video: Correct code taking the size of a
 pointer

Hi Andrew,

thanks for your comment (and for taking the patch).
You can count it as Acked-by:me as it is technically correct. I also 
tested it but as I don't know any program that uses this interface (and 
not wanting to write my own as I do not want to encourage anyone to use 
this interface) I can't say whether it now works as intended.
However this patch is certainly a step in the right direction as writing 
random numbers to hardware is rarely correct :-)

Andrew Morton schrieb:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:52:59 +0100 Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Julia, Andrew,
>>
>> Julia Lawall schrieb:
>>> From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
>>>
>>> sizeof(viafb_gamma_table) is just the size of the pointer.  This is changed
>>> to the size used when calling kmalloc to initialize the pointer.
>> this is the second patch addressing this issue ending up in my mailbox. 
>> At least this one is technically correct so feel free to upstream it.
>> However I vote for removing this ioctl hell from viafb as most of them 
>> duplicate framebuffer functionality or have unknown (not clearly 
>> defined) functionality or at least solve a generic problem with a custom 
>> ioctl (which I consider bad). I had a patch ready to move this stuff to 
>> an extra file and print a warning that it is subject to be removed. I 
>> feel a bit uncomfortable about repairing broken stuff prior to removing it.
>> Any comments on this subject?
>>
> 
> I favour both repairing and removing broken stuff ;)
> 
> We may as well fix it if problems are known.  Perhaps someone is
> hitting the problem at runtime in an older kernel and needs a patch to
> backport.  Perhaps we later decide to revert the removal, thus
> reinstating the known bug.

You are right.
I'll try to send a patch that at least labels these ioctls 
unstable/depreciated as soon as time permits so that nobody will start 
using them.


Regards,

Florian Tobias Schandinat
--
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/