linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/14] regulator: max1586: zero-initialize regulator match table array

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: <5457A480.30102@collabora.co.uk>
Date:	Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:51:28 +0100
From:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Chris Zhong <zyw@...k-chips.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Abhilash Kesavan <kesavan.abhilash@...il.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/14] regulator: max1586: zero-initialize regulator
 match table array

On 11/03/2014 04:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 03:40:40PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> The struct of_regulator_match rmatch[] is declared as a non-static local
>> variable so the structure members are not auto-initialized.
> 
> Applied, thanks.
> 
> This is a bug fix not *that* closely related to the rest of the series,
> if it's being included in a series like this it should've been at the
> start of the series not after substantial new feature additions so that
> the fixes don't get ignored due to problems with the features and so
> that the fixes can be sent to Linus without dependencies.
> 

True, I added in the series since of_get_regulation_constraints() checks
if the struct regulator_desc * pointer is not NULL and so drivers that
don't initialize the struct of_regulator_match containing that pointer
will make that check to fail and the pointer be wrongly dereferenced.

Sorry, next time I'll post fixes separately and make the series depend on
that instead.

Best regards,
Javier
--
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/