linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: stm: correct the index in master array release

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: <87pow6chvc.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:12:23 +0200
From:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
	zhang.lyra@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: stm: correct the index in master array release

Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org> writes:

> It would be broken if stm_data->sw_start isn't zero, because that
> stp_master_free() get the 'master' with __stm_master()/stm_master(),
> in which the masterID is the second input parameter minus
> stm_data->sw_start. So freeing STM masters has to start from
> stm_data->sw_start.

No, it won't. stm_master_free() handles nonexistent masters correctly.
It does make sense to shrink the loop in stm_unregister_device() to
avoid going through the [0..sw_start) range, since stm_master() returns
NULL for those, but not for the reasons given in this patch description.

Regards,
--
Alex