linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] backlight: Fix the logic to set bits in adp8860_bl and adp8870

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]

Date:	Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:22:20 +0800
From:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@...log.com>,
	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
	device-drivers-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight: Fix the logic to set bits in adp8860_bl and
 adp8870_bl drivers

>> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/adp8860_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/adp8860_bl.c
>> index 66bc74d..378276c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/adp8860_bl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/adp8860_bl.c
>> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static int adp8860_set_bits(struct i2c_client *client, int reg, uint8_t bit_mask
>>
>>       ret = adp8860_read(client, reg, &reg_val);
>>
>> -     if (!ret && ((reg_val & bit_mask) == 0)) {
>> +     if (!ret && ((reg_val & bit_mask) != bit_mask)) {
>>               reg_val |= bit_mask;
>>               ret = adp8860_write(client, reg, reg_val);
>>       }
>> diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/adp8870_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/adp8870_bl.c
>> index 6c68a68..6735059 100644
>> --- a/drivers/video/backlight/adp8870_bl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/adp8870_bl.c
>> @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ static int adp8870_set_bits(struct i2c_client *client, int reg, uint8_t bit_mask
>>
>>       ret = adp8870_read(client, reg, &reg_val);
>>
>> -     if (!ret && ((reg_val & bit_mask) == 0)) {
>> +     if (!ret && ((reg_val & bit_mask) != bit_mask)) {
>>               reg_val |= bit_mask;
>>               ret = adp8870_write(client, reg, reg_val);
>>       }
>
> This patch is applicable to 3.2.x, but I don't know whether to route it
> to -stable becasue you didn't tell me what effect the patch has :(
>

It's because I don't have this hardware.
I just found the bug while reading the code.

I was thinking I should CC stable, but since the code is there for a long time
and I don't know any complains of the bug. So I didn't CC stable.

Michael, do you see any user-visible effects of the bug?

Thanks,
Axel
--
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/