[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1449603913.2384.16.camel@tiscali.nl>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:45:13 +0100
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
syzkaller@...glegroups.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Karsten Keil <isdn@...ux-pingi.de>,
isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de,
gigaset307x-common@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ser_gigaset: fix up NULL checks
Hi Tilman,
On di, 2015-12-08 at 12:00 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Commit f34d7a5b changed tty->driver to tty->ops but left NULL checks
(This makes checkpatch complain, but the correct commit description
style is used in the Fixes: tag, so it's not a big deal.)
> for tty->driver untouched. Fix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
> Fixes: f34d7a5b7010 ("tty: The big operations rework")
Should we backport this all the way to v2.6.32 (currently the oldest
stable tree)?
> diff --git a/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c
> b/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c
> index 375be50..d8771b5 100644
> --- a/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c
> +++ b/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c
> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static int write_modem(struct cardstate *cs)
> struct sk_buff *skb = bcs->tx_skb;
> int sent = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> - if (!tty || !tty->driver || !skb)
> + if (!tty || !tty->ops || !skb)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (!skb->len) {
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int send_cb(struct cardstate *cs)
> unsigned long flags;
> int sent = 0;
>
> - if (!tty || !tty->driver)
> + if (!tty || !tty->ops)
> return -EFAULT;
>
> cb = cs->cmdbuf;
> @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static int gigaset_set_modem_ctrl(struct cardstate
> *cs, unsigned old_state,
> struct tty_struct *tty = cs->hw.ser->tty;
> unsigned int set, clear;
>
> - if (!tty || !tty->driver || !tty->ops->tiocmset)
> + if (!tty || !tty->ops || !tty->ops->tiocmset)
> return -EINVAL;
> set = new_state & ~old_state;
> clear = old_state & ~new_state;
It's pretty obvious that this should have been part of commit
f34d7a5b7010 ("tty: The big operations rework"). That being said, these
test puzzle me. It's not obvious why they're needed. Ie, can the null
dereferences they try to catch really happen? But I can try to figure
out that in the future, if I ever feel the urge to do so. Anyhow:
Acked-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Paul Bolle
--
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