linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] 3c59x: fix build failure on !CONFIG

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: <4CE3FBAC.3030503@oracle.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:58:36 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
CC:	Steffen Klassert <klassert@...hematik.tu-chemnitz.de>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 3c59x: fix build failure on !CONFIG_PCI

On 11/16/10 18:22, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 2010-11-16 (화), 09:14 -0800, Randy Dunlap:
>> Hi,
>>
> 
> Hi, Randy
> 
> 
>> Interesting patch.  I have reported this build error and looked
>> into fixing it, but did not come up with this solution.
>>
>> Looking at it more:  if CONFIG_PCI is not enabled, DEVICE_PCI() is NULL.
>> That makes VORTEX_PCI() (with or without your patch) have a value of NULL.
>>
>> Is the line with the reported syntax error (3211) executed in
>> function acpi_set_WOL() ?  If so, let's assume that vp->enable_wol is true.
>> Then what happens on line 3211 (or 3213 after your patch)?
>>
>> 		if (VORTEX_PCI(vp)->current_state < PCI_D3hot)
>> 			return;
>>
>> or if I am really confuzed this morning, please tell me how it works.
>>
> 
> At first glance, I've noticed that the code above could make a NULL
> dereference so I added NULL check prior to the line.
> 
> But after reading more code I realized that other pci-functions called
> in acpi_set_WOL() would not work with NULL pci_dev pointer also. And I
> found all callers of the acpi_set_WOL() already checked NULL pointer
> before the call. Finally I could remove the NULL check and leave the
> code as is. That's how it works. :)

I see.  and concur.  Thanks for the explanation.

-- 
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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/