[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110607164423.GA32575@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:44:23 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: gregkh@...e.de, jirislaby@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] TTY: ntty, add one more sanity check
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 02:16:17PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> With the previous patch, we fixed another bug where read_buf was freed
> while we still was in n_tty_read. We currently check whether read_buf
> is NULL at the start of the function. Add one more check after we wake
> up from waiting for input.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> ---
> drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> index 95d0a9c..c62c856 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> @@ -1785,6 +1785,7 @@ do_it_again:
> break;
> }
> timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> + BUG_ON(!tty->read_buf);
So, if we ever hit this, what are we going to do with this crash?
I really don't want to add more BUG_ON() calls to the kernel if at all
possible. Or is it the case that we will crash if this case is true
soon afterward anyway?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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