linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/24] Staging: ipack/devices/ipoctal: Store isr masks in ipoctal

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: <20120913184346.GA11613@endeavour.taprogge.org>
Date:	Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:43:46 +0200
From:	Jens Taprogge <jens.taprogge@...rogge.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <siglesias@...lia.com>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	industrypack-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] Staging: ipack/devices/ipoctal: Store isr masks in
 ipoctal_channel

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:19:17AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 20:49 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:43:12PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:55:29PM +0200, Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez wrote:
> > > > From: Jens Taprogge <jens.taprogge@...rogge.org>
> > > > 
> > > > This way interrupt handling becomes independent of the channel number.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jens Taprogge <jens.taprogge@...rogge.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Samuel Iglesias Gonsalvez <siglesias@...lia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > @@ -213,7 +206,7 @@ static int ipoctal_irq_handler(void *arg)
> > > >  		}
> > > >  
> > > >  		/* RX data */
> > > > -		if (isr_rx_rdy && (sr & SR_RX_READY)) {
> > > > +		if ((isr && channel->isr_rx_rdy_mask) && (sr & SR_RX_READY)) {
> > >                          ^^
> > > Bitwise AND intended here I think.
> > > 
> > 
> > Never mind.  It gets silently fixed in the next patch.
> 
> Nope, you were right the first time.
> 
> It shouldn't be silently fixed,
> 
> The best path is to rework the original patch
> to fix the misuse or the worse path is that the
> subsequent patch log should mention the fix.

I am sorry this slipped through.  The patches are already in
staging-next.  What is the best action to take now?  Should I prepare
the two patches with the issue fixed?

Best Regards,
Jens
--
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/