linux-kernel - Re: [ 28/73] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef after bad one

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: <20120801015621.GF3111@herton-Z68MA-D2H-B3>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:56:22 -0300
From:	Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Steve Sakoman <steve@...oman.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
Subject: Re: [ 28/73] ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: Fix to ensure check of right oppdef
 after bad one

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 05:43:38AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
> 
> commit b110547e586eb5825bc1d04aa9147bff83b57672 upstream.

This change is uneeded in 3.2, but doesn't do any harm either... it just
seems to fix the code because of the continue added in 9fa2df6b (ARM:
OMAP2+: OPP: allow OPP enumeration to continue if device is not present),
change which 3.2 doesn't have. A noop for 3.2 anyway, so either way it's
fine, applying or not, just commenting on it.

> 
> Commit 9fa2df6b90786301b175e264f5fa9846aba81a65
> (ARM: OMAP2+: OPP: allow OPP enumeration to continue if device is not present)
> makes the logic:
> for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++) {
> 	<snip>
> 	if (!oh || !oh->od) {
> 		<snip>
> 		continue;
> 	}
> <snip>
> opp_def++;
> }
> 
> In short, the moment we hit a "Bad OPP", we end up looping the list
> comparing against the bad opp definition pointer for the rest of the
> iteration count. Instead, increment opp_def in the for loop itself
> and allow continue to be used in code without much thought so that
> we check the next set of OPP definition pointers :)
> 
> Cc: Steve Sakoman <steve@...oman.com>
> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c |    3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
> index de6d464..d8f6dbf 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp.c
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ int __init omap_init_opp_table(struct omap_opp_def *opp_def,
>  	omap_table_init = 1;
>  
>  	/* Lets now register with OPP library */
> -	for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++) {
> +	for (i = 0; i < opp_def_size; i++, opp_def++) {
>  		struct omap_hwmod *oh;
>  		struct device *dev;
>  
> @@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ int __init omap_init_opp_table(struct omap_opp_def *opp_def,
>  					__func__, opp_def->freq,
>  					opp_def->hwmod_name, i, r);
>  		}
> -		opp_def++;
>  	}
>  
>  	return 0;
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

-- 
[]'s
Herton
--
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/