linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: gadget: g_fs: possible invalid pointer reference bug fixed

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: <op.vedzcjyz7p4s8u@pikus>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:30:09 +0200
From:	Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>
Cc:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: gadget: g_fs: possible invalid pointer reference bug
 fixed

> Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/g_ffs.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/g_ffs.c
>> index 2f26470..da3a9e4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/g_ffs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/g_ffs.c
>> @@ -392,6 +392,17 @@ static int __gfs_do_config(struct usb_configuration *c,
>>  	if (unlikely(ret < 0))
>>  		return ret;
>>
>> +	/* After previous do_configs there may be some invalid
>> +	 * pointers in c->interface array.  This happens every time
>> +	 * a user space function with fewer interfaces than a user
>> +	 * space function that was run before the new one is run.  The
>> +	 * compasit's set_config() assumes that if there is no more
>> +	 * then MAX_CONFIG_INTERFACES interfaces in a configuration
>> +	 * then there is a NULL pointer after the last interface in
>> +	 * c->interface array.  We need to make sure this is true. */

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:10:36 +0200, Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com> wrote:
>     According to CodingStyle, the preferred style of the multi-line comments
> is this:
>
> /*
>   * bla
>   * bla
>   */

You are of course correct but on the other hand I have consistently used
the incorrect form so far also in g_ffs.c so...  I think correcting only
this comment would bring inconsistency so I should rather resend it with
other (two) comments corrected as well.  Anyone thinks I should do that?

And I promise, I will remember to use the correct format in my future
files.

-- 
Best regards,                                        _     _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of  o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science,  Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz       (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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/