[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1407031331520.9641@jlaw-desktop.mno.stratus.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:45:22 -0400
From: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...atus.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>,
Nagalakshmi Nandigama <Nagalakshmi.Nandigama@....com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <Sreekanth.Reddy@....com>, <support@....com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...allels.com>,
<DL-MPTFusionLinux@....com>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: mpt2sas: mpt2sas_base.c: Fix for possible null
pointer dereference
On Wed, 28 May 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > - ioc_status = le16_to_cpu(mpi_reply->IOCStatus) & MPI2_IOCSTATUS_MASK;
> > + if (mpi_reply) {
> > + ioc_status = le16_to_cpu(mpi_reply->IOCStatus) & MPI2_IOCSTATUS_MASK;
> > + }
> >
> > if (ioc_status != MPI2_IOCSTATUS_SUCCESS)
> > ioc->port_enable_failed = 1;
>
> ioc_status isn't initialized without the reply and used here as well
> as later in the function. I think we'll need input from LSI or others
> with the spec on what to do when we didn't get a reply.
Any update on this?
The mpt3 version checks for !mpi_reply and returns 1. Which leads to
another question -- should mpt{2,3}sas_port_enable_done ever return 0 (as their
respective comments describe)?
Regards,
-- Joe
--
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