[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DEE588E.1050108@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:57:50 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
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 06/07/2011 06:44 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?
Yeah, it will crash something like 10 lines below. The pointer is
dereferenced there.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
--
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