linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] HID: hid-multitouch: fix wrong protocol detection

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: <CAN+gG=HJQxvFvCDf4LkYcvG3th4dyNFTNy8LzCZcq=gqo97p-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2012 11:32:56 +0200
From:	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Stephane Chatty <chatty@...c.fr>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] HID: hid-multitouch: fix wrong protocol detection

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>
>> > well, the idea was to keep the memory footprint low. As these values
>> > are only needed at init, then I freed them once I finished using them.
>> > I can of course skip the pointer, but in that case, wouldn't the
>> > struct declaration be worthless?
>>
>> My bad, I misread the placement of the free() statement. I was also
>> concerned about memory, since HID is big enough a memory hog as it
>> is. Barring the added complexity of this patch, it now makes more
>> sense.
>>
>>     Acked-by: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>
>
> drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c: In function ‘mt_post_parse’:
> drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c:673: error: invalid type argument of ‘->’ (have ‘unsigned int’)
> make[1]: *** [drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.o] Error 1
>
> I believe that
>
>        td->last_slot_field = f->usages[field_count_per_touch - 1]->hid;
>
> should be
>
>        td->last_slot_field = f->usages[field_count_per_touch - 1];

Ouch, indeed. the "->hid" is extra. When I split the patch 1 and 5, I
missed that one.

I tested it without the ->hid, and it's good. Do I need to resend the patch?

Cheers,
Benjamin

>
> but I leave this up to you guys to fix.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Jiri Kosina
> 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/