[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151209115339.46a09d94@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:53:39 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...n.com>,
Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [patch RESEND] atp870u: 64 bit bug in atp885_init()
On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 13:24:53 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> On 64 bit CPUs there is a memory corruption bug on probe(). It should
> be a u32 pointer instead of an unsigned long pointer or we write past
> the end of the setupdata[] array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>
> ---
> Resending because we have shuffled the code around so the patch needed
> to be refreshed against linux-next. Although I do wonder why we are
> still working on this code since it has never worked on 64 bit systems
> so probably all the users gave up a decade ago.
So this is untested ? If so please make it very clear in the commit
message because the kernel is IMHO getting too full of polished, neat,
recently modified, never tested, never used code.
I agree it would be better if the driver was simply deleted. I've not
even seen an ATP870 bug report in years.
Alan
--
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