linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

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]

Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 02:26:46 +0000
From:	"Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>
To:	Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing

Hi,

> From: linux-acpi-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Baoquan
> He
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/tables: Correct the wrong count increasing
> 
> The current code always increases the count in the 1st element of
> array proc[].
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
> ---
> 
> v1->v2:
>     V1 is a wrong post because I didn't update the tested code to my
>     local laptop. Repost with a correct v2.
> 
>  drivers/acpi/tables.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> index 9f0ad6e..34d45bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ acpi_parse_entries_array(char *id, unsigned long table_size,
>  			     proc[i].handler(entry, table_end))
>  				return -EINVAL;
> 
> -			proc->count++;
> +			proc[i].count++;

Do we have code using acpi_subtable_proce.count?
I think the answer is yes because of:
[Patch] x86, ACPI: Fix the wrong assignment when Handle apic/x2apic entries

So why don't you put these 2 patches together into a single series?
And help to validate if there are problems in other acpi_subtable_proce.count users.

Thanks
Lv

>  			break;
>  		}
>  		if (i != proc_num)
> --
> 2.5.5
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html